Giacomo Montagna1, Minna K Lee1, Varadan Sevilimedu2, Andrea V Barrio1, Monica Morrow3. 1. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Biostatistics Service, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. morrowm@mskcc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In cN1 patients rendered cN0 with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the false-negative rate of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is < 10% when ≥ 3 sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) are removed. The added value of nodal clipping in this scenario is unknown. Here we determine how often the clipped node is a sentinel node when ≥ 3 SLNs are retrieved. METHODS: We identified cT1-3N1 patients treated between 02/2018 and 10/2021 with a clipped lymph node at presentation. SLNB was performed with a standardized approach of dual-tracer mapping and retrieval of ≥ 3 SLNs. Clipped nodes were not localized; SLNs were X-rayed intraoperatively to determine clip location. Axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) was performed for any residual disease or retrieval of < 3 SLNs. RESULTS: Of 269 patients, 251 (93%) had ≥ 3 SLNs. Median age was 51 years; the majority (92%) had ductal histology; 46% were HR+/HER2-. The median number of SLNs removed was 4 (IQR 3,5). The clipped node was an SLN in 88% (220/251) of cases. Of the 31 where the clipped node was not, 13 had a positive SLN mandating ALND, and the clip was identified in the ALND specimen. In the remaining 18, where ≥ 3 negative SLNs were retrieved and an ALND was not performed, the clip was not retrieved, with no axillary failures in this group (median follow-up: 55 months). CONCLUSION: When the SLNB procedure is optimized with dual tracer and retrieval of ≥ 3 SLNs, the clipped node is an SLN in the majority of cases, suggesting that failure to retrieve the clipped node should not be an indication for ALND.
BACKGROUND: In cN1 patients rendered cN0 with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the false-negative rate of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is < 10% when ≥ 3 sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) are removed. The added value of nodal clipping in this scenario is unknown. Here we determine how often the clipped node is a sentinel node when ≥ 3 SLNs are retrieved. METHODS: We identified cT1-3N1 patients treated between 02/2018 and 10/2021 with a clipped lymph node at presentation. SLNB was performed with a standardized approach of dual-tracer mapping and retrieval of ≥ 3 SLNs. Clipped nodes were not localized; SLNs were X-rayed intraoperatively to determine clip location. Axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) was performed for any residual disease or retrieval of < 3 SLNs. RESULTS: Of 269 patients, 251 (93%) had ≥ 3 SLNs. Median age was 51 years; the majority (92%) had ductal histology; 46% were HR+/HER2-. The median number of SLNs removed was 4 (IQR 3,5). The clipped node was an SLN in 88% (220/251) of cases. Of the 31 where the clipped node was not, 13 had a positive SLN mandating ALND, and the clip was identified in the ALND specimen. In the remaining 18, where ≥ 3 negative SLNs were retrieved and an ALND was not performed, the clip was not retrieved, with no axillary failures in this group (median follow-up: 55 months). CONCLUSION: When the SLNB procedure is optimized with dual tracer and retrieval of ≥ 3 SLNs, the clipped node is an SLN in the majority of cases, suggesting that failure to retrieve the clipped node should not be an indication for ALND.
Authors: Anita Mamtani; Andrea V Barrio; Tari A King; Kimberly J Van Zee; George Plitas; Melissa Pilewskie; Mahmoud El-Tamer; Mary L Gemignani; Alexandra S Heerdt; Lisa M Sclafani; Virgilio Sacchini; Hiram S Cody; Sujata Patil; Monica Morrow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Jean-Francois Boileau; Brigitte Poirier; Mark Basik; Claire M B Holloway; Louis Gaboury; Lucas Sideris; Sarkis Meterissian; Angel Arnaout; Muriel Brackstone; David R McCready; Stephen E Karp; Isabelle Trop; Andre Lisbona; Frances C Wright; Rami J Younan; Louise Provencher; Erica Patocskai; Atilla Omeroglu; Andre Robidoux Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Judy C Boughey; Vera J Suman; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Gretchen M Ahrendt; Lee G Wilke; Bret Taback; A Marilyn Leitch; Henry M Kuerer; Monet Bowling; Teresa S Flippo-Morton; David R Byrd; David W Ollila; Thomas B Julian; Sarah A McLaughlin; Linda McCall; W Fraser Symmans; Huong T Le-Petross; Bruce G Haffty; Thomas A Buchholz; Heidi Nelson; Kelly K Hunt Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Hong Zhang; Carlos H Barrios; Shigehira Saji; Kyung Hae Jung; Roberto Hegg; Andreas Koehler; Joohyuk Sohn; Hiroji Iwata; Melinda L Telli; Cristiano Ferrario; Kevin Punie; Frédérique Penault-Llorca; Shilpen Patel; Anh Nguyen Duc; Mario Liste-Hermoso; Vidya Maiya; Luciana Molinero; Stephen Y Chui; Nadia Harbeck Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-09-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Giacomo Montagna; Anita Mamtani; Andrea Knezevic; Edi Brogi; Andrea V Barrio; Monica Morrow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-06-02 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Sanaz Samiei; Janine M Simons; Sanne M E Engelen; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Jean-Marc Classe; Marjolein L Smidt Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2021-06-09 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: J M Simons; L B Koppert; E J T Luiten; C C van der Pol; S Samiei; J H W de Wilt; S Siesling; M L Smidt Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 4.872