Contraindications of sentinel lymph node biopsy: Áre there any really?

BACKGROUND: One of the most exciting and talked about new surgical techniques in breast cancer surgery is the sentinel lymph node biopsy. It is an alternative procedure to standard axillary lymph node dissection, which makes possible less invasive surgery and side effects for patients with early breast cancer that wouldn't benefit further from axillary lymph node clearance. Sentinel lymph node biopsy helps to accurately evaluate the status of the axilla and the extent of disease, but also determines appropriate adjuvant treatment and long-term follow-up. However, like all surgical procedures, the sentinel lymph node biopsy is not appropriate for each and every patient. METHODS: In this article we review the absolute and relative contraindications of the procedure in respect to clinically positive axilla, neoadjuvant therapy, tumor size, multicentric and multifocal disease, in situ carcinoma, pregnancy, age, body-mass index, allergies to dye and/or radio colloid and prior breast and/or axillary surgery. RESULTS: Certain conditions involving host factors and tumor biologic characteristics may have a negative impact on the success rate and accuracy of the procedure. The overall fraction of patients unsuitable or with multiple risk factors that may compromise the success of the sentinel lymph node biopsy, is very small. Nevertheless, these patients need to be successfully identified, appropriately advised and cautioned, and so do the surgeons that perform the procedure. CONCLUSION: When performed by an experienced multi-disciplinary team, the SLNB is a highly effective and accurate alternative to standard level I and II axillary clearance in the vast majority of patients with early breast cancer

Development of sentinel node localization and ROLL in breast cancer in Europe

The concept of a precise region in which to find the lymph nodes that drain the lymph directly from the primary tumor site can be traced back to a century ago to the observations of Jamieson and Dobson who described how cancer cells spread from cancer of the stomach in a single lymph node, which they called the â\u80\u9cprimary glandâ\u80\u9d. However, Cabanas was the first in 1977 to realize the importance of this concept in clinical studies following lymphography performed in patients with penile cancer. Thanks to Mortonâ\u80\u99s studies on melanoma in 1992, we began to understand the potential impact of the sentinel lymph node (SN) on the surgical treatment of this type of cancer. The use of a vital dye (blue dye) administered subdermally in the region surrounding the melanoma lesion led to the identification of the sentinel node, and the vital dye technique was subsequently applied to other types of solid tumors, e.g. breast, vulva. However, difficulties in using this technique in anatomical regions with deep lymphatic vessels, e.g. axilla, led to the development of lymphoscintigraphy, started by Alex and Krag in 1993 on melanoma and breast cancer and optimized by our group at European Institute of Oncology (IEO) in Milan in 1996. Today, lymphoscintigraphy is still considered as the most reliable method for the detection of the SN. In 1996, a new method for the localization of non-palpable breast lesion called radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) was also developed at IEO. Retrospective and prospective studies have since shown that the ROLL procedure permits the easy and accurate surgical removal of non-palpable breast lesions, overcoming the limitations of previous techniques such as the wire-guided localization. The purpose of this paper is to describe the evolution of SN biopsy and radioguided surgery in the management of breast cancer. We also include a review of the literature on the clinical scenarios in which SN biopsy in breast cancer is currently used, with particular reference to controversies and future prospects

New models and online calculator for predicting non-sentinel lymph node status in sentinel lymph node positive breast cancer patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Current practice is to perform a completion axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) for breast cancer patients with tumor-involved sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs), although fewer than half will have non-sentinel node (NSLN) metastasis. Our goal was to develop new models to quantify the risk of NSLN metastasis in SLN-positive patients and to compare predictive capabilities to another widely used model.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We constructed three models to predict NSLN status: recursive partitioning with receiver operating characteristic curves (RP-ROC), boosted Classification and Regression Trees (CART), and multivariate logistic regression (MLR) informed by CART. Data were compiled from a multicenter Northern California and Oregon database of 784 patients who prospectively underwent SLN biopsy and completion ALND. We compared the predictive abilities of our best model and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Breast Cancer Nomogram (Nomogram) in our dataset and an independent dataset from Northwestern University.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>285 patients had positive SLNs, of which 213 had known angiolymphatic invasion status and 171 had complete pathologic data including hormone receptor status. 264 (93%) patients had limited SLN disease (micrometastasis, 70%, or isolated tumor cells, 23%). 101 (35%) of all SLN-positive patients had tumor-involved NSLNs. Three variables (tumor size, angiolymphatic invasion, and SLN metastasis size) predicted risk in all our models. RP-ROC and boosted CART stratified patients into four risk levels. MLR informed by CART was most accurate. Using two composite predictors calculated from three variables, MLR informed by CART was more accurate than the Nomogram computed using eight predictors. In our dataset, area under ROC curve (AUC) was 0.83/0.85 for MLR (n = 213/n = 171) and 0.77 for Nomogram (n = 171). When applied to an independent dataset (n = 77), AUC was 0.74 for our model and 0.62 for Nomogram. The composite predictors in our model were the product of angiolymphatic invasion and size of SLN metastasis, and the product of tumor size and square of SLN metastasis size.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We present a new model developed from a community-based SLN database that uses only three rather than eight variables to achieve higher accuracy than the Nomogram for predicting NSLN status in two different datasets. </p

Could lymphatic mapping and sentinel node biopsy provide oncological providence for local resectional techniques for colon cancer? A review of the literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Endoscopic resectional techniques for colon cancer are undermined by their inability to determine lymph node status. This limits their application to only those lesions at the most minimal risk of lymphatic dissemination whereas their technical capacity could allow intraluminal or even transluminal address of larger lesions. Sentinel node biopsy may theoretically address this breach although the variability of its reported results for this disease is worrisome.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were interrogated back to 1999 to identify all publications concerning lymphatic mapping for colon cancer with reference cross-checking for completeness. All reports were examined from the perspective of in vivo technique accuracy selectively in early stage disease (i.e. lesions potentially within the technical capacity of endoscopic resection).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Fifty-two studies detailing the experiences of 3390 patients were identified. Considerable variation in patient characteristics as well as in surgical and histological quality assurances were however evident among the studies identified. In addition, considerable contamination of the studies by inclusion of rectal cancer without subgroup separation was frequent. Indeed such is the heterogeneity of the publications to date, formal meta-analysis to pool patient cohorts in order to definitively ascertain technique accuracy in those with T1 and/or T2 cancer is not possible. Although lymphatic mapping in early stage neoplasia alone has rarely been specifically studied, those studies that included examination of false negative rates identified high T3/4 patient proportions and larger tumor size as being important confounders. Under selected circumstances however the technique seems to perform sufficiently reliably to allow it prompt consideration of its use to tailor operative extent.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The specific question of whether sentinel node biopsy can augment the oncological propriety for endoscopic resective techniques (including Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery [NOTES]) cannot be definitively answered at present. Study heterogeneity may account for the variability evident in the results from different centers. Enhanced capacity (perhaps to the level necessary to consider selective avoidance of en bloc mesenteric resection) by its confinement to only early stage disease is plausible although not proven. Specific study of the technique in early stage tumors is clearly essential before proffering this approach.</p