Volume-controlled vs no/short-term drainage after axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer surgery : a meta-analysis

It is unknown whether there are any clinically relevant differences between volume-controlled (>30-50 ml/24h across trials) vs no/short-term drainage after axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer surgery on outcomes such as seroma formation, wound infection or length of hospital stay. Randomised controlled trials comparing volume-controlled drainage vs no or short-term drainage after axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer surgery were identified systematically using Pubmed, EMBASE and The Cochrane library. Trial data were reviewed and extracted independently by two reviewers in a standardised unblinded manner. Six randomised controlled trials which included a total of 561 patients fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Patients randomised to volume-controlled drainage were less likely to develop clinically relevant seromas compared to patients randomised to no/short-term drainage. There was, however, no difference in wound infections between patients treated with volume-controlled drainage and patients with no or short-term drainage. Patients randomised to volume-controlled drainage stayed significantly longer in hospital than patients randomised to no/short-term drainage. Based on available evidence, clinically relevant seromas occur more frequently in patients treated with no/short-term drainage. However, no/short-term drainage after axillary lymph node dissection does not lead to an increase in wound infections and is associated with shorter hospital stay

Lymphatic drainage patterns from the treated breast

INTRODUCTION: Lymphatic drainage patterns from the breast have been described in the past. Drainage may change after treatment of a breast or axilla, and this may have implications for lymphatic mapping. The aim of this study was to determine the lymphatic drainage patterns in breast cancer patients with a previously treated ipsilateral breast. METHODS: Between January 1999 and November 2008, 115 sentinel node procedures were performed in breast cancer patients who had undergone treatment of the ipsilateral breast in the past. Lymphatic drainage patterns were analyzed based on preoperative lymphoscintigraphy and sentinel lymph node biopsy. Patients were divided into subgroups according to their previous treatment. RESULTS: Sentinel nodes were found in 84% of the patients: in 81 patients (70%) in the axilla, 43 patients (37%) had drainage to more than one site, and in 18 patients (16%) no drainage was detected. The percentage of drainage outside the axilla was higher than in a series of untreated breast cancer patients from our institution (51% versus 33%, P = 0.01). The 16% nonidentification rate was also higher than the 3.1% in patients without previous treatment (P = 0.003). Four patients (3.5%) had lymphatic drainage to the contralateral axilla. Twelve patients (10%) had involved sentinel nodes; these were harvested from the contralateral axilla in two of them. No lymph node recurrences were observed during a median follow-up time of 39 months. CONCLUSION: Lymphatic mapping yields a lymph node in 84% of breast cancer patients who have undergone previous treatment of the breast. Nonidentification and extra-axillary nodes are more frequently encountered than in patients without treatment of the breast in the past. The finding of involved nodes suggests that sentinel node biopsy improves staging. Long-term follow-up will determine the sensitivity of the procedure in this specific situatio

The yield of SPECT/CT for anatomical lymphatic mapping in patients with breast cancer

PURPOSE: The recently introduced hybrid single-photon emission computed tomography camera with integrated CT (SPECT/CT) fuses tomographic lymphoscintigrams with anatomical data from CT. The purpose of this study was to explore this sophisticated technique in lymphatic mapping in breast cancer patients. METHODS: We studied 134 patients who underwent SPECT/CT immediately after late planar imaging when these images showed an unusual drainage pattern (85 patients), a pattern that was difficult to interpret (27 patients), or nonvisualization (22 patients). RESULTS: Planar imaging suggested 271 sentinel nodes in 112 of the 134 patients (84%). SPECT/CT showed 269 of these same nodes and indicated that two sites of radioactivity were caused by skin contamination. SPECT/CT visualized 19 additional sentinel nodes in 15 patients, of whom 11 had non-visualization on planar images. One or more tumour-positive sentinel nodes were seen in 27 patients, and in 4 of these patients (15%), these were visualized only by SPECT/CT. SPECT/CT had no additional value for the surgical approach in 11 patients with persisting nonvisualization (8%), and was of questionable value in 67 other patients (50%). Based on the SPECT/CT images, a more precise incision was made in 48 patients (36%), an extra incision was made in 6 (4%), and an incision was omitted in 2 (1.5%). CONCLUSION: SPECT/CT detected additional sentinel nodes and showed the exact anatomical location of sentinel nodes in breast cancer patients with inconclusive planar images. SPECT/CT was able to visualize drainage in patients whose planar images did not reveal a sentinel node. Therefore, SPECT/CT facilitates surgical exploration in difficult cases and may improve stagin