Sentinel lymph node biopsy using dye alone method is reliable and accurate even after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer - a prospective study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is now considered a standard of care in early breast cancers with N0 axillae; however, its role in locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is still being debated. The present study assessed the feasibility, efficacy and accuracy of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) using "dye alone" (methylene blue) method in patients with LABC following NACT.</p> <p>Materials and methods</p> <p>Thirty, biopsy proven cases of LABC that had received three cycles of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, 5-fluorouracil) were subjected to SLNB (using methylene blue dye) followed by complete axillary lymph node dissection (levels I-III). The sentinel node(s) was/were and the axilla were individually assessed histologically. The SLN accuracy parameters were calculated employing standard definitions. The SLN identification rate in the present study was 100%. The sensitivity of SLNB was 86.6% while the accuracy was 93.3%, which were comparable with other studies done using dual lymphatic mapping method. The SLN was found at level I in all cases and no untoward reaction to methylene blue dye was observed.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study confirms that SLNB using methylene blue dye as a sole mapping agent is reasonably safe and almost as accurate as dual agent mapping method. It is likely that in the near future, SLNB may become the standard of care and provide a less morbid alternative to routine axillary lymph node dissection even in patients with LABC that have received NACT.</p

The Microanatomic Location of Metastatic Breast Cancer in Sentinel Lymph Nodes Predicts Nonsentinel Lymph Node Involvement

Background: The majority of sentinel node (SN) positive breast cancer patients do not have additional non-SN involvement and may not benefit from axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). Previous studies in melanoma have suggested that microanatomic localization of SN metastases may predict non-SN involvement. The present study was designed to assess whether these criteria might also be used to be more restrictive in selecting breast cancer patients who would benefit from an ALND. Methods: A consecutive series of 357 patients with invasive breast cancer and a tumorpositive axillary SN, followed by an ALND, was reviewed. Microanatomic SN tumor features (subcapsular, combined subcapsular and parenchymal, parenchymal, extensive localization, multifocality, and the penetrative depth from the SN capsule) were evaluated for their predictive value for non-SN involvement. Results: Non-SN metastases were found in 136/357 cases (38%). Microanatomic location and penetrative depth of SN metastases were significant predictors for non-SN involvement (<0.001); limited penetrative depth was associated with a low frequency of non-SN involvement with a minimal of 10%. Conclusions: Microanatomic location and penetrative depth of breast cancer SN metastases predict non-SN involvement. However, based on these features no subgroup of patients could be selected with less than 10% non-SN involvement

A Longitudinal Comparison of Arm Morbidity in Stage I–II Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy, Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Followed by Completion Lymph Node Dissection, or Axillary Lymph Node Dissection

Background:\ud Long-term shoulder and arm function following sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) may surpass that following complete axillary lymph node dissection (CLND) or axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). We objectively examined the morbidity and compared outcomes after SLNB, SLNB + CLND, and ALND in stage I/II breast cancer patients.\ud \ud Materials and Methods:\ud Breast cancer patients who had SLNB (n = 51), SLNB + CLND (n = 55), and ALND (n = 65) were physically examined 1 day before surgery (T0), and after 6 (T1), 26 (T2), 52 (T3), and 104 (T4) weeks. Differences in 8 parameters between the affected and unaffected arms were calculated. General linear models were computed to examine time, group, and interaction effects.\ud \ud Results:\ud All outcomes changed significantly, mostly nonlinearly, over time (T0–T4). Between T1 and T4, limitations decreased in abduction (all groups); anteflexion, abduction-exorotation, abduction strength (SLNB + CLND, ALND); flexion strength (SLNB + CLND); and arm volume (SLNB, SLNB + CLND). At T4, limitations in anteflexion (SLNB, ALND), abduction (SLNB + CLND, ALND), exorotation (ALND), abduction-exorotation (all groups), and volume (SLNB + CLND, ALND) increased significantly compared with T0. The SLNB group showed an advantage in anteflexion, abduction, abduction-exorotation, and volume. Groups changed significantly but differently over time in anteflexion, abduction, abduction/exorotation, abduction strength, flexion strength, and volume. Effect sizes varied from 0.19 to 0.00.\ud \ud Conclusion:\ud Initial declines in range of motion and strength were followed by recovery, although not always to presurgery levels. Range of motion and volume outcomes were better for SLNB than ALND, but not strength. SLNB surpassed SLNB + CLND in 2 of the range of motion variables. The clinical relevance of these results is negligible

Quality of Life After Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy or Axillary Lymph Node Dissection in Stage I/II Breast Cancer Patients: A Prospective Longitudinal Study

Background:\ud Breast cancer patients’ quality of life (QoL) after surgery has been reported to improve significantly over time. Little is known about QoL recovery after sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in comparison to axillary lymph node dissection (ALND).\ud \ud Methods:\ud 175 of 195 stage I/II breast cancer patients completed the EORTC QLQ-C30: one day before surgery (T0) and after 6 (T1), 26 (T2), 52 (T3) and 104 (T4) weeks. Of these, 54 patients underwent SLNB, 56 SLNB+ALND and 65 ALND. General linear models and paired T-tests between T0–T4 and T1–T4 were computed. Complications, radiotherapy and systemic therapy were added to the model.\ud \ud Results:\ud Significant time effects were found on physical, role and emotional functioning. Physical and role functioning decreased between T0 and T1. At T4, SLNB patients’ functioning had increased to their T0 level; ALND (+/– SLNB) patients’ functioning had increased, but had not improved to T0 level. Emotional functioning increased linearly between T0 and T4. At T4, emotional functioning was significantly higher in all groups as compared with T0. No significant group or interaction (time × group) effects were found. Complications and chemotherapy had a significant negative effect on role, emotional and cognitive functioning. Complications had a significant effect on social functioning also. Effect sizes varied between 0.00 and 0.06.\ud \ud Conclusion:\ud Two years post surgery, breast cancer patients’ QoL is comparable to that shortly before surgery. Women rated their emotional functioning as even better. SLNB is not associated with a better QoL than ALND. However, undergoing systemic therapy and/or experiencing complications affects QoL negatively

Upper extremity impairments in women with or without lymphedema following breast cancer treatment

Breast-cancer-related lymphedema affects ∼25% of breast cancer (BC) survivors and may impact use of the upper limb during activity. The purpose of this study is to compare upper extremity (UE) impairment and activity between women with and without lymphedema after BC treatment. 144 women post BC treatment completed demographic, symptom, and Disability of Arm-Shoulder-Hand (DASH) questionnaires. Objective measures included Purdue pegboard, finger-tapper, Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments, vibration perception threshold, strength, range of motion (ROM), and volume. Women with lymphedema had more lymph nodes removed (p &lt; .001), more UE symptoms (p &lt; .001), higher BMI (p = .041), and higher DASH scores (greater limitation) (p &lt; .001). For all participants there was less strength (elbow flexion, wrist flexion, grip), less shoulder ROM, and decreased sensation at the medial upper arm (p &lt; .05) in the affected UE. These differences were greater in women with lymphedema, particularly in shoulder abduction ROM (p &lt; .05). Women with lymphedema had bilaterally less elbow flexion strength and shoulder ROM (p &lt; .05). Past diagnosis of lymphedema, grip strength, shoulder abduction ROM, and number of comorbidities contributed to the variance in DASH scores (R 2 of 0.463, p &lt; .001). UE impairments are found in women following treatment for BC. Women with lymphedema have greater UE impairment and limitation in activities than women without. Many of these impairments are amenable to prevention measures or treatment, so early detection by health care providers is essential

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

Clinicopathologic Features Associated With Having Four or More Metastatic Axillary Nodes in Breast Cancer Patients With a Positive Sentinel Lymph Node

The survival benefit of a completion axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in patients after removal of a metastatic sentinel lymph node (SLN) is uncertain and is under study in ongoing clinical trials. The completion ALND remains necessary, however, for the identification of cases with at least four metastatic lymph nodes, in which extended-field locoregional and/or postmastectomy radiation will be recommended. Our goal was evaluate clinicopathologic features that might serve as surrogates for determining which patients with a positive SLN are likely or unlikely to belong to this high-risk subset.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/41409/1/10434_2006_Article_9251.pd