Annals of Surgical Oncology, Vol 7, Issue 1 21-27, Copyright © 2000 by Society of Surgical Oncology

ARTICLES

Biopsy method and excision volume do not affect success rate of subsequent sentinel lymph node dissection in breast cancer

P. I. Haigh, N. M. Hansen, K. Qi and A. E. Giuliano
Division of Surgical Oncology, John Wayne Cancer Institute at Saint John's Health Center, Santa Monica, California 90404, USA.

INTRODUCTION: Sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) is becoming a recognized technique for accurately staging patients with breast cancer. Its success in patients with large tumors or prior excisions has been questioned. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of biopsy method, excision volume, interval from biopsy to SLND, tumor size, and tumor location on SLND success rate. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent SLND followed by completion axillary lymph node dissection from October 1991 to December 1995 were analyzed. Included were cases performed early in the series before the technique was adequately developed. Excision volume was derived from the product of three dimensions as measured by the pathologist. Two end points were analyzed: sentinel node identification rate and accuracy of SLND in predicting axillary status. Univariate analyses using chi2 or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sums for continuous variables were performed. Multivariate analysis was performed using logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 284 SLND procedures performed on 283 patients. Median age was 55 years. The most recent biopsy method used before SLND was stereotactic core biopsy in 41 (14%), fine-needle aspiration in 62 (22%), and excision in 181 (64%) procedures. The mean excision volume was 32 ml with a range of 0.3-169 ml. The mean time from biopsy to SLND was 17 days with a range of 0-140 days. The mean tumor size was 2.0 cm (15 Tis [5%], 184 T1 [65%], 72 T2 [25%], and 13 T3 [5%]). Tumors were located in the outer quadrants in 74%, the inner quadrants in 18%, and subareolar region in 8%. The sentinel node was identified in 81%, and 39% had metastases. There were three false-negative cases early in the series. Sensitivity was 97%, and accuracy was 99%. Negative predictive value was 98% in cases in which the sentinel node was identified. On the basis of biopsy method, excisional volume, time from biopsy to SLND, tumor size, and tumor location, there was no statistically significant difference (P>.05) in sentinel node identification rate or accuracy of SLND. CONCLUSIONS: SLND has a high success rate in breast cancer patients regardless of the biopsy method or the excision volume removed before SLND. In addition, the interval from biopsy to SLND, tumor size, and tumor location have no effect on the success rate of SLND, even in this series which included patients operated on before the technique was adequately defined. Patients with breast cancers located in any quadrant and diagnosed either with a needle or excisional biopsy could be evaluated for trials of SLND.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Intra, G. Trifiro, G. Viale, N. Rotmensz, O. D. Gentilini, J. Soteldo, V. Galimberti, P. Veronesi, A. Luini, G. Paganelli, et al. Second Biopsy of Axillary Sentinel Lymph Node for Reappearing Breast Cancer After Previous Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Ann. Surg. Oncol., November 1, 2005; 12(11): 895 - 899. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. H. Lyman, A. E. Giuliano, M. R. Somerfield, A. B. Benson III, D. C. Bodurka, H. J. Burstein, A. J. Cochran, H. S. Cody III, S. B. Edge, S. Galper, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline Recommendations for Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Early-Stage Breast Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., October 20, 2005; 23(30): 7703 - 7720. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Khan, M. S. Sabel, A. Nees, K. M. Diehl, V. M. Cimmino, C. G. Kleer, A. F. Schott, D. F. Hayes, A. E. Chang, and L. A. Newman Comprehensive Axillary Evaluation in Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Patients With Ultrasonography and Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Ann. Surg. Oncol., September 1, 2005; 12(9): 697 - 704. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Fortunato, M. Amini, M. Farina, S. Rapacchietta, L. Costarelli, F. R. Piro, G. Alessi, P. Pompili, S. Bianca, and C. E. Vitelli Intraoperative Examination of Sentinel Nodes in Breast Cancer: Is the Glass Half Full or Half Empty? Ann. Surg. Oncol., November 1, 2004; 11(11): 1005 - 1010. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. R. Krynyckyi, C. K. Kim, M. R. Goyenechea, P. T. Chan, Z.-Y. Zhang, and J. Machac Clinical Breast Lymphoscintigraphy: Optimal Techniques for Performing Studies, Image Atlas, and Analysis of Images RadioGraphics, January 1, 2004; 24(1): 121 - 145. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. S. Cody III Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Breast Cancer: Does Anybody Not Need One? Ann. Surg. Oncol., December 1, 2003; 10(10): 1131 - 1132. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. R. McCready Quality Assurance: The Value of Data and the Will to Improve Ann. Surg. Oncol., October 1, 2003; 10(8): 837 - 838. [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. Brenot-Rossi, G. Houvenaeghel, J. Jacquemier, V.-J. Bardou, M. Martino, N. Hassan-Sebbag, and J. Pasquier Nonvisualization of Axillary Sentinel Node During Lymphoscintigraphy: Is There a Pathologic Significance in Breast Cancer? J. Nucl. Med., August 1, 2003; 44(8): 1232 - 1237. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. J. Tanis, R. A. Valdes Olmos, S. H. Muller, and O. E. Nieweg Lymphatic Mapping in Patients with Breast Carcinoma: Reproducibility of Lymphoscintigraphic Results Radiology, August 1, 2003; 228(2): 546 - 551. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. D. Badgwell, S. P. Povoski, S. F. Abdessalam, D. C. Young, W. B. Farrar, M. J. Walker, L. D. Yee, E. E. Zervos, W. E. Carson III, and W. E. Burak Jr Patterns of Recurrence After Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Breast Cancer Ann. Surg. Oncol., May 1, 2003; 10(4): 376 - 380. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Bonnema and C. J. H. van de Velde Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer Ann. Onc., October 1, 2002; 13(10): 1531 - 1537. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. A. Litvak and A. E. Giuliano The Results of the Department of Defense's Breast Lymphatic Mapping Study Ann. Surg. Oncol., June 1, 2002; 9(5): 428 - 429. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. L. Wong, M. J. Edwards, C. Chao, T. M. Tuttle, R. D. Noyes, D. J. Carlson, A. L. Laidley, T. Q. McGlothin, P. B. Ley, C. M. Brown, et al. The Effect of Prior Breast Biopsy Method and Concurrent Definitive Breast Procedure on Success and Accuracy of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Ann. Surg. Oncol., April 1, 2002; 9(3): 272 - 277. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Mariani, L. Moresco, G. Viale, G. Villa, M. Bagnasco, G. Canavese, J. Buscombe, H. W. Strauss, and G. Paganelli Radioguided Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Breast Cancer Surgery J. Nucl. Med., August 1, 2001; 42(8): 1198 - 1215. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Cantin, H. Scarth, M. Levine, and M. Hugi Clinical practice guidelines for the care and treatment of breast cancer: 13. Sentinel lymph node biopsy Can. Med. Assoc. J., July 1, 2001; 165(2): 166 - 173. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Nos, P. Freneaux, S. Guilbert, M. C. Falcou, R. J. Salmon, and K. B. Clough Sentinel Lymph Node Detection for Breast Cancer: Which Patients Are Best Suited for the Patent Blue Dye Only Method of Identification? Ann. Surg. Oncol., June 1, 2001; 8(5): 438 - 443. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. S. Cody III, J. Fey, T. Akhurst, M. Fazzari, M. Mazumdar, H. Yeung, S. D.J. Yeh, and P. I. Borgen Complementarity of Blue Dye and Isotope in Sentinel Node Localization for Breast Cancer: Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of 966 Procedures Ann. Surg. Oncol., January 1, 2001; 8(1): 13 - 19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. E. Giuliano, P. I. Haigh, M. B. Brennan, N. M. Hansen, M. C. Kelley, W. Ye, E. C. Glass, and R. R. Turner Prospective Observational Study of Sentinel Lymphadenectomy Without Further Axillary Dissection in Patients With Sentinel Node-Negative Breast Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., July 1, 2000; 18(13): 2553 - 2559. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]