Technical outcomes of sentinel-lymph-node resection and conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer: results from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase III trial

被引:1057
作者
Krag, David N. [1 ]
Anderson, Stewart J.
Bjulian, Thomas
Brown, Ann M.
Harlow, Seth P.
Ashikaga, Takamaru
Weaver, Donald L.
Miller, Barbara J.
Jalovec, Lynne M.
Frazier, Thomas G.
Noyes, R. Dirk
Robidoux, Andre
Scarth, Hugh M. C.
Mammolito, Denise M.
McCready, David R.
Mamounas, Eleftherios P.
Costantino, Joseph P.
Wolmark, Norman
机构
[1] Univ Vermont, Coll Med, Dept Surg, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
[2] Univ Pittsburgh, Grad Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Biostat, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
[3] Allegheny Gen Hosp, Pittsburgh, PA 15212 USA
[4] Clin Oncol Program, Assoc Commun, Peoria, IL USA
[5] Univ Illinois, Peoria, IL USA
[6] Bryn Mawr Hosp, Comprehens Breast Ctr, Bryn Mawr, PA USA
[7] Univ Utah, Latter Day St Hosp, Huntsman Canc Inst, Salt Lake City, UT 84143 USA
[8] Univ Montreal, Ctr Hosp, Quebec City, PQ, Canada
[9] St Johns Hosp, New Brunswick, NJ USA
[10] Univ Toronto, Princess Margaret Hosp, Toronto, ON, Canada
[11] Aultman Hlth Fdn, Canton, OH USA
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70278-4
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 [肿瘤学];
摘要
Background The goals of axillary-lymph-node dissection (ALND) are to maximise survival, provide regional Control, and stage the patient. However, this technique has substantial side-effects. The purpose of the B-32 trial is to establish whether sentinel-lymph-node (SLN) resection can achieve the same therapeutic goals as conventional ALND but with decreased side-effects. The aim of this paper is to report the technical success and accuracy of SLN resection plus ALND versus SLN resection alone. Methods 5611 women with invasive breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive either SLN resection followed by immediate conventional ALND (n=2807; group 1) or SLN resection without ALND if SLNs were negative on intraoperative cytology and histological examination (n=2804; group 2) in the B-32 trial. Patients in group 2 underwent ALND if no SLNs were identified or if one or more SLNs were positive on intraoperative cytology or subsequent histological examination. Primary endpoints, including survival, regional control, and morbidity, will be reported later. Secondary endpoints are accuracy and technical success and are reported here. This trial is registered with the Clinical Trial registry, number NCT00003830. Findings Data for technical success were available for 5536 of 5611 patients; 75 declined protocol treatment, had no SLNs removed, or had no SLN resection done. SLNs were successfully removed in 97.2% of patients (5379 of 5536) in both groups combined. Identification of a preincision hot spot was associated with greater SLN removal (98.9% 5072 of 51281). Only 1.4% (189 of 13171) of SLN specimens were outside of axillary levels I and II. 65.1% (8571 of 13 171) of S LN specimens were both radioactive and blue; a small percentage was identified by palpation only (3.9% [515 of 13171]). The overall accuracy of SLN resection in patients in group 1 was 97.1% (2544 of 2619; 95% CI 96.4-97.7), with a false-negative rate of 9.8% (75 of 766; 95% CI 7.8-12.2). Differences in tumour location, type of biopsy, and number of SLNs removed significantly affected the false-negative rate. Allergic reactions related to blue dye occurred in 0.7% (37 of 5588) of patients with data on toxic effects. Interpretation The findings reported here indicate excellent balance in clinical patient characteristics between the two randomised groups and that the success of SLN resection was high. These findings are important because the B-32 of trial is the only trial of sufficient size to provide definitive information related to the primary outcome measures survival and regional control. Removal of more than one SLN and avoidance of excisional biopsy are important variables in reducing the false-negative rate.
引用
收藏
页码:881 / 888
页数:8
相关论文
共 32 条
[1]
EXACT CONDITIONAL TESTS FOR CROSS-CLASSIFICATIONS - APPROXIMATION OF ATTAINED SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS [J].
AGRESTI, A ;
WACKERLY, D ;
BOYETT, JM .
PSYCHOMETRIKA, 1979, 44 (01) :75-83
[2]
GAMMA-PROBE GUIDED LOCALIZATION OF LYMPH-NODES [J].
ALEX, JC ;
KRAG, DN .
SURGICAL ONCOLOGY-OXFORD, 1993, 2 (03) :137-143
[3]
Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: Guidelines and pitfalls of lymphoscintigraphy and gamma probe detection [J].
Borgstein, P ;
Pijpers, R ;
Comans, EF ;
van Diest, PJ ;
Boom, RP ;
Meijer, S .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 1998, 186 (03) :275-283
[5]
CABANAS RM, 1977, CANCER, V39, P456, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(197702)39:2<456::AID-CNCR2820390214>3.0.CO
[6]
2-I
[7]
Lymphatic drainage patterns from the breast [J].
Estourgie, SH ;
Nieweg, OE ;
Olmos, RAV ;
Rutgers, EJT ;
Kroon, BBR .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2004, 239 (02) :232-237
[8]
International Breast Cancer Study Group trial of sentinel node biopsy [J].
Galimberti, V .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2006, 24 (01) :210-211
[9]
LYMPHATIC MAPPING AND SENTINEL LYMPHADENECTOMY FOR BREAST-CANCER [J].
GIULIANO, AE ;
KIRGAN, DM ;
GUENTHER, JM ;
MORTON, DL .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 1994, 220 (03) :391-401
[10]
Observation of the breast cancer patient with a tumor-positive sentinel node: Implications of the ACOSOG Z0011 trial [J].
Grube, BJ ;
Giuliano, AE .
SEMINARS IN SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2001, 20 (03) :230-237