| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Original Article |
Department of Surgical Oncology, C22, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, PO Box 9015, 6500 GS Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Correspondence: Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Marjolein L. Smidt, MD; E-mail: marjoleinsmidt{at}yahoo.com
Background: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) carries the inherent risk of approximately 5% false-negative sampling. Undetected tumor-positive nodes of clinical importance are those that lead to axillary recurrence. This survey aims at clarifying the extent of this problem in current practice and literature.
Methods: In a regional teaching hospital, 696 consecutive breast cancer patients underwent SLNB between January 1998 and July 2003, and data were entered in a prospective database. PubMed and the Cochrane library were searched for a systematic review of the literature. Thirteen studies dealt with the follow-up of a cohort of sentinel lymph node (SLN)-negative patients or presented a case report.
Results: The SLN identification rate was 97.1%. The SLN was tumor free in 439 (65%) of the 676 patients. After a median follow-up of 26 months, axillary recurrence was detected in 2 of 439 patients 4 and 27 months after the SLNB. The incidence of clinically apparent false-negative SLNB is .46%. The systematic review resulted in 3184 SLNB-negative patients with a median follow-up of 25 months. Axillary recurrence occurred in eight patients after a median of 21 months. The axillary recurrence rate in the literature is .25%. One third of these patients present with synchronous systemic metastases.
Conclusions: Axillary recurrences after a negative SLNB occur, but at a much lower rate than would be expected on the basis of historical figures and the false-negative SLN findings. The natural history of axillary relapse after negative SLNB resembles the locoregional recurrence of breast cancer.
Key Words: Breast neoplasms • Sentinel lymph node biopsy • Neoplasm recurrence • False negative sampling
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  S. L. Koelliker, M. A. Chung, M. B. Mainiero, M. M. Steinhoff, and B. Cady Axillary Lymph Nodes: US-guided Fine-Needle Aspiration for Initial Staging of Breast Cancer Correlation with Primary Tumor Size Radiology, December 1, 2007; 246(1): 81 - 89. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. J. Bolster, P. Bult, R. F. M. Schapers, J. W. R. Meijer, L. J. A. Strobbe, C. L. H. van Berlo, J. H. G. Klinkenbijl, P. G. M. Peer, T. Wobbes, and V. C. G. Tjan-Heijnen Differences in Sentinel Lymph Node Pathology Protocols Lead to Differences in Surgical Strategy in Breast Cancer Patients Ann. Surg. Oncol., November 1, 2006; 13(11): 1466 - 1473. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. C. van Rijk, O. E. Nieweg, E. J. T. Rutgers, H. S. A. Oldenburg, R. V. Olmos, C. A. Hoefnagel, and B. B. R. Kroon Sentinel Node Biopsy Before Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Spares Breast Cancer Patients Axillary Lymph Node Dissection Ann. Surg. Oncol., April 1, 2006; 13(4): 475 - 479. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. C. Snider Jr., E. Rubin, and R. Henson Axillary Ultrasonography to Detect Recurrence After Sentinel Node Biopsy in Breast Cancer Ann. Surg. Oncol., April 1, 2006; 13(4): 501 - 507. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. L. Smidt, D. M. Kuster, G. J. van der Wilt, F. B. Thunnissen, K. J. Van Zee, and L. J. A. Strobbe Can the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Nomogram Predict the Likelihood of Nonsentinel Lymph Node Metastases in Breast Cancer Patients in The Netherlands? Ann. Surg. Oncol., December 1, 2005; 12(12): 1066 - 1072. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. A. Newman Lymphatic Mapping and Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Breast Cancer Patients J. Oncol. Pract, November 1, 2005; 1(4): 130 - 133. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
