Factors predicting failure to identify a sentinel lymph node in breast cancer

被引:67
作者
Chagpar, AB
Martin, RC
Scoggins, CR
Carlson, DJ
Laidley, AL
El-Eid, SE
McGlothin, TQ
Noyes, RD
Ley, PB
Tuttle, TM
McMasters, KM
机构
[1] Univ Louisville, Dept Surg, Div Surg Oncol, Louisville, KY 40292 USA
[2] St Marys Hosp, Evansville, IN USA
[3] Deaconess Hosp, Evansville, IN USA
[4] Breast Surg N Texas, Dallas, TX USA
[5] Hudson Valley Surg, Kingston, NY USA
[6] Latter Day St Hosp, Salt Lake City, UT 84143 USA
[7] Surg Clin Associates, Jackson, MS USA
[8] Pk Nicollet Clin, Minneapolis, MN USA
关键词
D O I
10.1016/j.surg.2005.03.003
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background. Although sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy is widely accepted as a minimally invasive method of nodal staging, failure to identify an SLN mandates a. level I/II axillary node dissection. The purpose of this study was to elucidate factors that independently predict failure to identify an SLN. Methods. Using a large multicenter prospective study of SLN biopsy for patients with invasive breast cancer, we performed univariate and multivariate regression analyses to determine clinicopathologic factors predictive of failure to identify an SLN. Results. Of the total 4131 patients in the study, an SLN was not identified in 249 (6.0%). Tumor location (P =.409), biopsy type (P =.079), surgery type (P =.380), and histologic subtype (P =.999) were not significant Predictors of failure to identify an SLN. On multivariate analysis, age greater than 60 years (OR = 1.469; 95 % CI, 1.116-1.934, P =. 006), nonpalpable tumors (OR = 0. 639; 95 % CI, 0.479-0.852, P =. 002), injection technique with blue dye alone (OR = 0.389, 95 % CI, 0. 259-5-86, P <. 001), and surgical experience of less than 10 SLN biopsy cases (OR = 1. 886; 1.428-2.492, P <.001) were significant independent predictors of failure to identify an SLN. Optimal SLN biopsy technique using an intradermal and/or subareolar injection of radioactive colloid and blue dye can improve SLN identification rates regardless of patient and tumor characteristics. Conclusions. Patient age and tumor palpability significantly affect the ability to identify an SLN in patients with breast cancer. Optimal injection technique can significantly improve sentinel node identification rate regardless of these factors.
引用
收藏
页码:56 / 63
页数:8
相关论文
共 58 条
[1]  
Bass S S, 1999, Surg Oncol Clin N Am, V8, P497
[2]  
BASSIOUNI MC, 1999, INT CRIMINAL LAW, V1, P3
[3]   Subareolar and peritumoral injection identify similar sentinel nodes for breast cancer [J].
Bauer, TW ;
Spitz, FR ;
Callans, LS ;
Alavi, A ;
Mick, R ;
Weinstein, SP ;
Bedrosian, I ;
Fraker, DL ;
Bauer, TL ;
Czerniecki, BJ .
ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2002, 9 (02) :169-176
[4]  
Beitsch P D, 2001, Breast J, V7, P219, DOI 10.1046/j.1524-4741.2001.20120.x
[5]   Breast cancer: Variables affecting sentinel lymph node visualization at preoperative lymphoscintigraphy [J].
Birdwell, RL ;
Smith, KL ;
Betts, BJ ;
Ikeda, DM ;
Strauss, HW ;
Jeffrey, SS .
RADIOLOGY, 2001, 220 (01) :47-53
[6]   Relapse and morbidity in patients undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy alone or with axillary dissection for breast cancer [J].
Blanchard, DK ;
Donohue, JH ;
Reynolds, C ;
Grant, CS .
ARCHIVES OF SURGERY, 2003, 138 (05) :482-487
[7]   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
[8]   Sentinel lymph node biopsy results in less postoperative morbidity compared with axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer [J].
Burak, WE ;
Hollenbeck, ST ;
Zervos, EE ;
Hock, KL ;
Kemp, LC ;
Young, DC .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2002, 183 (01) :23-27
[9]  
Cantin J, 2001, CAN MED ASSOC J, V165, P166
[10]   Validation of subareolar and periareolar injection techniques for breast sentinel lymph node biopsy [J].
Chagpar, A ;
Martin, RC ;
Chao, C ;
Wong, SL ;
Edwards, MJ ;
Tuttle, T ;
McMasters, KM .
ARCHIVES OF SURGERY, 2004, 139 (06) :614-618