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
[51]  
2-K
[52]   Effects of early postfiltration ocular hypotony on visual acuity, long-term intraocular pressure control, and posterior segment morphology [J].
Schwenn, O ;
Kersten, I ;
Dick, HB ;
Müller, H ;
Pfeiffer, N .
JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA, 2001, 10 (02) :85-88
[53]   Comparison between periareolar and peritumoral injection of radiotracer for sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with breast cancer [J].
Shimazu, K ;
Tamaki, Y ;
Taguchi, T ;
Takamura, Y ;
Noguchi, S .
SURGERY, 2002, 131 (03) :277-286
[54]   Magnetic resonance imaging-guided core needle biopsy and needle localized excision of occult breast lesions [J].
Smith, LF ;
Henry-Tillman, R ;
Mancino, AT ;
Johnson, A ;
Jones, MP ;
Westbrook, KC ;
Harms, S ;
Klimberg, VS .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2001, 182 (04) :414-418
[55]   Multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer using both technetium sulfur colloid and isosulfan blue dye [J].
Tafra, L ;
Lannin, DR ;
Swanson, MS ;
Van Eyk, JJ ;
Verbanac, KM ;
Chua, AN ;
Ng, PC ;
Edwards, MS ;
Halliday, BE ;
Henry, CA ;
Sommers, LM ;
Carman, CM ;
Molin, MR ;
Yurko, JE ;
Perry, RR ;
Williams, R .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2001, 233 (01) :51-59
[56]   Subareolar injection of 99mTc facilitates sentinel lymph node identification [J].
Tuttle, TM ;
Colbert, M ;
Christensen, R ;
Ose, KJ ;
Jones, T ;
Wetherille, R ;
Friedman, J ;
Swenson, K ;
McMasters, KM .
ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2002, 9 (01) :77-81
[57]  
Wong Sandra L, 2002, Breast J, V8, P192, DOI 10.1046/j.1524-4741.2002.08402.x
[58]   Subareolar injection for sentinel lymph node location in breast cancer [J].
Zavagno, G ;
Meggiolaro, F ;
Rossi, CR ;
Casara, D ;
Pescarini, L ;
Marchet, A ;
Denetto, V ;
Baratella, P ;
Lise, M .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2002, 28 (07) :701-704