Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Does sentinel lymph node biopsy for screening high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast cause more harm than good?

  • Preclinical study
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast does not metastasize to axillary lymph nodes. Yet high-grade DCIS (HgDCIS) is often subjected to Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy (SLNB) concomitant with definitive surgery. This is to avoid further axillary surgery in the event of upstaging to invasive carcinoma, which often entails Axillary Lymph Node Dissection (ALND). We wished to examine the validity of this approach.

Methods

This study includes a retrospective analysis of consecutive pre-operatively diagnosed HgDCIS patients from a single screening unit between December/2014 and August/2016. The main outcomes were the overall incidence of upstaging and the independent predictors of upstaging on multivariable analysis. The rates of various complications of SLNB vs ALND in four RCTs were used to calculate the upstaging rate below which SLNB could be safely omitted.

Results

There were 224 eligible patients of whom 26 (11.6%) were upstaged. Axillary metastasis (pN1) occurred in two patients (0.9%). On Univariable analysis, upstaged patients were significantly younger (median (IQR) = 56.0 (51.0–63) vs 60.0 (54.0–65.0); p = 0.019). Radiological size, pathological size, type of biopsy, type of operation, and comedo-necrosis were not significant (p > 0.05). On multivariable analysis, age as a continuous variable (OR 0.93; p = 0.031) and core biopsy (OR 2.62; p = 0.036) were the only independent predictors of upstaging. Chi-square test showed that patients < 55 years whose pre-operative diagnosis was made on core biopsy were at significantly higher risk of upstaging than the others (31.8% vs 9.4%; p = 0.002).

Conclusion

Upstaging of HgDCIS is infrequent. According to the known rates of complications of SLNB relative to ALND, routine SLNB concomitant with surgery seems to be more harmful than its routine omission. A selective approach based on age and type of biopsy could be considered.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brennan ME et al (2011) Ductal carcinoma in situ at core-needle biopsy: meta-analysis of underestimation and predictors of invasive breast cancer. Radiology 260(1):119–128. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11102368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Siziopikou KP (2013) Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: current concepts and future directions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 137(4):462–466. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2012-0078-RA

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cancer Research UK (2020) In situ breast carcinoma incidence statistics. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/breast-cancer/incidence-in-situ#heading-Two. Accessed 21 Apr 2020

  4. Public Health England (2018) NHS breast screening (BSP) programme. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/breast-screening-programme-overview. Accessed 12 Apr 2020

  5. NHS Breast Screening Programme (2019) AgeX trial. https://www.agex.uk/. Accessed 12 Apr 2020

  6. Intra M et al (2008) Sentinel node biopsy is not a standard procedure in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: the experience of the European institute of oncology on 854 patients in 10 years. Ann Surg 247(2):315–319. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31815b446b

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jackman RJ et al (2001) Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. Radiology 218(2):497–502. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.218.2.r01fe35497

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Francis AM et al (2015) Is sentinel lymph node dissection warranted for patients with a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ? Ann Surg Oncol 22(13):4270–4279. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4547-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. van Roozendaal LM et al (2016) Sentinel lymph node biopsy can be omitted in DCIS patients treated with breast conserving therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 156(3):517–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3783-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Goyal A, Douglas-Jones A, Monypenny I, Sweetland H, Stevens G, Mansel RE (2006) Is there a role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ?: analysis of 587 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 98(3):311–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-006-9167-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wilkie C, White L, Dupont E, Cantor A, Cox CE (2005) An update of sentinel lymph node mapping in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. Am J Surg 190(4):563–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.06.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yen TW et al (2005) Predictors of invasive breast cancer in patients with an initial diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: a guide to selective use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in management of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Am Coll Surg 200(4):516–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2004.11.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cox CE et al (2001) Importance of lymphatic mapping in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): why map DCIS? Am Surg 67(6):513–519 discussion 519–21

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Prendeville S et al (2015) Sentinel lymph node biopsy is not warranted following a core needle biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast. Breast 24(3):197–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2015.01.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hoorntje LE, Schipper ME, Peeters PH, Bellot F, Storm RK, Borel Rinkes IH (2003) The finding of invasive cancer after a preoperative diagnosis of ductal carcinoma-in-situ: causes of ductal carcinoma-in-situ underestimates with stereotactic 14-gauge needle biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 10(7):748–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Meijnen P, Oldenburg HS, Loo CE, Nieweg OE, Peterse JL, Rutgers EJ (2007) Risk of invasion and axillary lymph node metastasis in ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed by core-needle biopsy. Br J Surg 94(8):952–956. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5735

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bonev V et al (2016) Is sentinel lymph node dissection necessary in all patients with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing total mastectomy? Am Surg 82(10):982–984

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dillon MF, McDermott EW, Quinn CM, O'Doherty A, O'Higgins N, Hill AD (2006) Predictors of invasive disease in breast cancer when core biopsy demonstrates DCIS only. J Surg Oncol 93(7):559–563. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.20445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mittendorf EA, Arciero CA, Gutchell V, Hooke J, Shriver CD (2005) Core biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: an indication for sentinel lymph node biopsy. Curr Surg 62(2):253–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cursur.2004.09.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee CH et al (2000) Ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed with stereotactic core needle biopsy: can invasion be predicted? Radiology 217(2):466–470. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.217.2.r00nv08466

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Conway A, Rustom C, Wills R, Ball A, Stacey-Clear A, Waheed S (2014) Is sentinel node biopsy necessary in patients undergoing mastectomy for DCIS? Eur J Surg Oncol 40(5):638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Boler DE, Cabioglu N, Ince U, Esen G, Uras C (2012) Sentinel lymph node biopsy in pure DCIS: is it necessary? ISRN Surg 2012:394095. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/394095

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Yarnold J (2009) Early and locally advanced breast cancer: diagnosis and treatment National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guideline 2009. Clin Oncol 21(3):159–160

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast Cancer (Version 3.2020). https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf. Accessed 12 Apr 2020

  25. He Z et al (2019) Clinical value of postoperative sentinel lymph node biopsy. Ann Transl Med 7(22):683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Blanco I et al (2011) Sentinel node biopsy in patients with breast cancer and previous breast surgery. Rev Esp Med Nucl 30(4):223–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.remn.2011.03.005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cancer Australia. Breast cancer (10/12/2018). https://breast-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/treatment/ductal-carcinoma-situ#DCIS%20lymph. Accessed 12 Apr 2020

  28. Wetzig N et al (2015) Sentinel lymph node based management or routine axillary clearance? Three-year outcomes of the RACS sentinel node biopsy versus axillary clearance (SNAC) 1 trial. Ann Surg Oncol 22(1):17–23. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3928-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ashikaga T et al (2010) Morbidity results from the NSABP B-32 trial comparing sentinel lymph node dissection versus axillary dissection. J Surg Oncol 102(2):111–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.21535

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Zavagno G et al (2008) A randomized clinical trial on sentinel lymph node biopsy versus axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer: results of the Sentinella/GIVOM trial. Ann Surg 247(2):207–213. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31812e6a73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mansel RE et al (2006) Randomized multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy versus standard axillary treatment in operable breast cancer: the ALMANAC Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(9):599–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Verry H et al (2012) Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sentinel lymph node biopsy compared with axillary node dissection in patients with early-stage breast cancer: a decision model analysis. Br J Cancer 106(6):1045–1052. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.62

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Ellis I et al (2005) Pathology reporting of breast disease. NHS Publication No 58. Sheffield, NHS cancer screening programmes and the royal college of pathologists

  34. Ellis I et al (2016) Pathology reporting of breast disease in surgical excision specimens incorporating the dataset for histological reporting of breast cancer

  35. van Deurzen CH, Hobbelink MG, van Hillegersberg R, van Diest PJ (2007) Is there an indication for sentinel node biopsy in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast? A review. Eur J Cancer 43(6):993–1001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2007.01.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Mathew J, Barthelmes L, Neminathan S, Crawford D (2006) Comparative study of lymphoedema with axillary node dissection versus axillary node sampling with radiotherapy in patients undergoing breast conservation surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol (EJSO) 32(7):729–732

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Frances Slater, Breast Screening Office Manager and Regional QA Admin Lead of the West Devon and East Cornwall Breast Screening Unit for her help with data retrieval and Maria Verroiotou (breast surgeon) for her participation in the breast screening programme and support in the development of this study and manuscript revision.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Primrose Breast Unit, Derriford Hospital, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth, PL6 8DH, Devon, UK

    Saed Ramzi, Erum Najeeb, James Coulthard & Stephanie Jenkins

Authors
  1. Saed Ramzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erum Najeeb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James Coulthard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephanie Jenkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saed Ramzi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ramzi, S., Najeeb, E., Coulthard, J. et al. Does sentinel lymph node biopsy for screening high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast cause more harm than good?. Breast Cancer Res Treat 182, 47–54 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05690-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05690-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation