Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Repeat sentinel node biopsy should be considered in patients with locally recurrent breast cancer

  • Clinical trial
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most patients with locally recurrent breast cancer undergo axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). However, repeat sentinel node biopsy (SNB) could provide regional nodal staging and obviate the need for standard ALND. The Sentinel Node and Recurrent Breast Cancer (SNARB) study is a Dutch nationwide registration study conducted to determine feasibility, aberrant drainage rates, and clinical consequences of repeat SNB. A total of 536 patients with locally recurrent non-metastatic breast cancer underwent lymphatic mapping and repeat SNB in 29 Dutch hospitals. A repeat sentinel node (SN) was identified in 333 of 536 patients (62.1 %) and surgically harvested in 287 patients (53.5 %). Aberrant lymph drainage was observed in 180 (54.1 %) of the 333 patients, more often after previous ALND (81.9 %) than SNB (28.4 %; P < 0.001). In 230 patients (80.1 %), the retrieved SN was tumor negative; 17 SNs (5.9 %) contained a micrometastasis and 29 (10.1 %) a macrometastasis. Confirmation ALND in 31 repeat SN-negative patients revealed a macrometastasis in two patients (6.5 %). The negative predictive value (NPV) of repeat SNB was 93.6 %, and ALND was omitted in 109 of the 248 patients (44.0 %) with a negative repeat SN. In 29 of the 44 patients (63.0 %) with a positive SN, adjuvant treatment plans were altered based on the repeat SNB. Repeat SNB is a feasible procedure with a high NPV, leading to a change in management in a substantial proportion of patients. Therefore, repeat SNB should replace routine ALND and serve as the standard of care in recurrent breast cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. NABON (2012) Richtlijn behandeling van het mammacarcinoom. Available at: www.oncoline.nl

  2. Lyman GH, Giuliano AE, Somerfield MR, Benson AB 3rd, Bodurka DC, Burstein HJ et al (2005) American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23(30):7703–7720

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Galimberti V, Viale G, Zurrida S, Bedoni M et al (1997) Sentinel-node biopsy to avoid axillary dissection in breast cancer with clinically negative lymph-nodes. Lancet 349(9069):1864–1867

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Giuliano AE, Dale PS, Turner RR, Morton DL, Evans SW, Krasne DL (1995) Improved axillary staging of breast cancer with sentinel lymphadenectomy. Ann Surg 222(3):394–399 (discussion 9–401)

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kim T, Giuliano AE, Lyman GH (2006) Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast carcinoma: a metaanalysis. Cancer 106(1):4–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Viale G, Luini A, Zurrida S, Galimberti V et al (2006) Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy as a staging procedure in breast cancer: update of a randomised controlled study. Lancet Oncol 7(12):983–990

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Maaskant AJ, van de Poll-Franse LV, Voogd AC, Coebergh JW, Tutein Nolthenius-Puylaert MC, Nieuwenhuijzen GA (2009) Stage migration due to introduction of the sentinel node procedure: a population-based study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 113(1):173–179

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Edge SB, Niland JC, Bookman MA, Theriault RL, Ottesen R, Lepisto E et al (2003) Emergence of sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer as standard-of-care in academic comprehensive cancer centers. J Natl Cancer Inst 95(20):1514–1521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, Greco M, Saccozzi R, Luini A et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. New Engl J Med 347(16):1227–1232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Voogd AC, Nielsen M, Peterse JL, Blichert-Toft M, Bartelink H, Overgaard M et al (2001) Differences in risk factors for local and distant recurrence after breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy for stage I and II breast cancer: pooled results of two large European randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 19(6):1688–1697

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wapnir IL, Anderson SJ, Mamounas EP, Geyer CE Jr, Jeong JH, Tan-Chiu E et al (2006) Prognosis after ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence and locoregional recurrences in five National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project node-positive adjuvant breast cancer trials. J Clin Oncol 24(13):2028–2037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Recht A, Come SE, Troyan SL, Sadowski NL (2000) Management of recurrent breast cancer. In: Harris J, Lippman M, Morrow M, Osborne CK (eds) Diseases of the breast. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 731–748

    Google Scholar 

  13. Derkx F, Maaskant-Braat AJ, van der Sangen MJ, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, van de Poll-Franse LV, Roumen RM et al (2010) Staging and management of axillary lymph nodes in patients with local recurrence in the breast or chest wall after a previous negative sentinel node procedure. Eur J Surg Oncol 36(7):646–651

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schijven MP, Vingerhoets AJ, Rutten HJ, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, Roumen RM, van Bussel ME et al (2003) Comparison of morbidity between axillary lymph node dissection and sentinel node biopsy. Eur J Surg Oncol 29(4):341–350

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Roumen RM, Kuijt GP, Liem IH (2006) Lymphatic mapping and sentinel node harvesting in patients with recurrent breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 32(10):1076–1081

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Port ER, Garcia-Etienne CA, Park J, Fey J, Borgen PI, Cody HS 3rd (2007) Reoperative sentinel lymph node biopsy: a new frontier in the management of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence. Ann Surg Oncol 14(8):2209–2214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Intra M, Trifiro G, Galimberti V, Gentilini O, Rotmensz N, Veronesi P (2007) Second axillary sentinel node biopsy for ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence. Br J Surg 94(10):1216–1219

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Intra M, Viale G, Vila J, Grana CM, Toesca A, Gentilini O et al (2014) Second axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast tumor recurrence: experience of the European Institute of Oncology. Ann Surg Oncol 22:2372–2377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Maaskant-Braat AJ, Roumen RM, Voogd AC, Pijpers R, Luiten EJ, Rutgers EJ et al (2013) Sentinel node and recurrent breast cancer (SNARB): results of a nationwide registration study. Ann Surg Oncol 20(2):620–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Maaskant-Braat AJ, Voogd AC, Roumen RM, Nieuwenhuijzen GA (2013) Repeat sentinel node biopsy in patients with locally recurrent breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat 138(1):13–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Suami H, Pan WR, Taylor GI (2009) Historical review of breast lymphatic studies. Clin Anat 22(5):531–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Grant RN, Tabah EJ, Adair FE (1953) The surgical significance of the subareolar symph plexus in cancer of the breast. Surgery 33(1):71–78

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Suami H, Pan WR, Mann GB, Taylor GI (2008) The lymphatic anatomy of the breast and its implications for sentinel lymph node biopsy: a human cadaver study. Ann Surg Oncol 15(3):863–871

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mukesh MB, Harris E, Collette S, Coles CE, Bartelink H, Wilkinson J et al (2013) Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) parameters for breast fibrosis: pooled results from two randomised trials. Radiother Oncol 108(2):293–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Borger JH, Kemperman H, Smitt HS, Hart A, van Dongen J, Lebesque J et al (1994) Dose and volume effects on fibrosis after breast conservation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 30(5):1073–1081

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Boughey JC, Ross MI, Babiera GV, Bedrosian I, Feig BW, Hwang RF et al (2006) Sentinel lymph node surgery in locally recurrent breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 7(3):248–253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dinan D, Nagle CE, Pettinga J (2005) Lymphatic mapping and sentinel node biopsy in women with an ipsilateral second breast carcinoma and a history of breast and axillary surgery. Am J Surg 190(4):614–617

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Koizumi M, Koyama M, Tada K, Nishimura S, Miyagi Y, Makita M et al (2008) The feasibility of sentinel node biopsy in the previously treated breast. Eur J Surg Oncol 34(4):365–368

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Taback B, Nguyen P, Hansen N, Edwards GK, Conway K, Giuliano AE (2006) Sentinel lymph node biopsy for local recurrence of breast cancer after breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 13(8):1099–1104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Louis-Sylvestre C, Clough K, Asselain B, Vilcoq JR, Salmon RJ, Campana F et al (2004) Axillary treatment in conservative management of operable breast cancer: dissection or radiotherapy? Results of a randomized study with 15 years of follow-up. J Clin Oncol 22(1):97–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fisher B, Wolmark N, Redmond C, Deutsch M, Fisher ER (1981) Findings from NSABP Protocol No. B-04: comparison of radical mastectomy with alternative treatments. II. The clinical and biologic significance of medial-central breast cancers. Cancer 48(8):1863–1872

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Fisher B, Jeong JH, Anderson S, Bryant J, Fisher ER, Wolmark N (2002) Twenty-five-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing radical mastectomy, total mastectomy, and total mastectomy followed by irradiation. New Engl J Med 347(8):567–575

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. van Tienhoven G, Voogd AC, Peterse JL, Nielsen M, Andersen KW, Mignolet F et al (1999) Prognosis after treatment for loco-regional recurrence after mastectomy or breast conserving therapy in two randomised trials (EORTC 10801 and DBCG-82TM). EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group and the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. Eur J Cancer 35(1):32–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Voogd AC, van Oost FJ, Rutgers EJ, Elkhuizen PH, van Geel AN, Scheijmans LJ et al (2005) Long-term prognosis of patients with local recurrence after conservative surgery and radiotherapy for early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 41(17):2637–2644

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Aebi S, Gelber S, Anderson SJ, Lang I, Robidoux A, Martin M et al (2014) Chemotherapy for isolated locoregional recurrence of breast cancer (CALOR): a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 15(2):156–163

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. van der Sangen MJ, Poortmans PM, Scheepers SW, Lemaire BM, van Berlo CL, Tjan-Heijnen VC et al (2013) Prognosis following local recurrence after breast conserving treatment in young women with early breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 39(8):892–898

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. van der Sangen MJ, van de Poll-Franse LV, Roumen RM, Rutten HJ, Coebergh JW, Vreugdenhil G et al (2006) The prognosis of patients with local recurrence more than five years after breast conservation therapy for invasive breast carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 32(1):34–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the following clinicians for patient recruitment and providing the study data: Mw. Dr. M. Bessems, Mw. Dr. M. F. Ernst, Dr. J.M. Klaase, Dr. F.C. Den Boer, Mw. Drs. S. Muller, Dr. J.E. De Vries, Mw. Dr. A.B. Francken, Mw. J. P. J. Burgmans, Dr. T. Van Dalen, Mw. Dr. L. Jansen, Mw. Drs. C.I.E. Scheeren, Dr. S.A. Koopal, Dr. F. W. C. van der Ent, Mw. Dr. Y.L.J. Vissers, Mw. Dr. M.L. Smidt, Dr. J. W. S. Merkus, Mw. Dr. C. M. E. Contant, Dr. P. H. J. M. Veldman, Dr. R. F. Schmitz, Mw. Dr. E. Linthorst-Niers, Dr. J.R.M. van der Sijp, Dr. O.R. Guicherit, Mw. Dr. M. B. E. Menke-Pluymers, Mw. Dr. L.B. Koppert, Mw. Dr. A.M. Bosch, Dr. L.J.A. Strobbe, Prof. Dr. H. De Wilt, Mw. Drs. M.S. Schlooz-Vries, Mw. Dr. P.G. Boelens, Dr. H. W. P. M. Kemperman, Dr. J. A. van Essen, Dr. J. W. D. de Waard, Dr. B. C. Vrouenraets and Dr. B. van Ooijen. The authors thank the Dutch Breast Cancer Trialists’ Group (BOOG) for their support in promoting, coordinating, and facilitating the SNARB study. This study was supported by a grant from the Dutch Cancer Society-KWF (Grant No. 2009-4466) for data registration and management.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Postbus 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    G. Vugts, A. J. G. Maaskant-Braat, Y. E. A. van Riet, H. J. T. Rutten & G. A. P. Nieuwenhuijzen

  2. Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    A. C. Voogd

  3. Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands

    A. C. Voogd

  4. Department of Surgery, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands

    E. J. T. Luiten

  5. Department of Surgery, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    E. J. Th. Rutgers

  6. Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    H. J. T. Rutten

  7. Department of Surgery, Maxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands

    R. M. H. Roumen

  8. GROW – School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    R. M. H. Roumen

Authors
  1. G. Vugts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. J. G. Maaskant-Braat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. C. Voogd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Y. E. A. van Riet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. E. J. T. Luiten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. E. J. Th. Rutgers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. H. J. T. Rutten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. R. M. H. Roumen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. G. A. P. Nieuwenhuijzen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Vugts.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Results from the Sentinel Node And Recurrent Breast Cancer (SNARB) study. On behalf of the Sentinel Node And Recurrent Breast Cancer (SNARB) study group.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vugts, G., Maaskant-Braat, A.J.G., Voogd, A.C. et al. Repeat sentinel node biopsy should be considered in patients with locally recurrent breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 153, 549–556 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-015-3571-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-015-3571-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation