Advertisement

Medical Oncology

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 233–236 | Cite as

Intraoperative touch imprint cytology of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer: experience at a tertiary care center in Mexico

  • V. M. Pérez-Sánchez
  • T. A. Vela-Chávez
  • P. Villarreal-Colin
  • E. Bargalló-Rocha
  • M. T. Ramírez-Ugalde
  • D. Munoz-Gonzalez
  • I. Zeichner-GanczEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Background Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in patients with breast cancer has emerged as a conservative and promising procedure. One of the most important issues is the intraoperative evaluation of the SLN with a high degree of accuracy by frozen section and/or imprint cytology. The objective of this study was to test the ability of intraoperative touch imprint cytology (ITIC) to predict metastasis on SLN. Methods SLNs were freshly examined, bisected in <0.5 cm or serially sectioned at 2 mm intervals on the long axis. Each surface of the section was touched on the glass slide, and stained. Results of ITIC were compared with permanent sections. Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy (Acc) were calculated. False negatives were reviewed. Results We analyzed 179 SLN from 110 patients. The comparison between ITIC and final results of the SLN showed 139 (77.6%) true negative imprints, and 28 (15.6%) true positive. There were 12 (6.70%) false negative (FN) imprints which included 6 macrometastases, 3 micrometastases, and 3 isolated tumor cells. Re-screening after the definitive results of false negative imprints showed again 10 negative imprints, one with two groups of cells and one with multiple groups of cells. The overall Se was 70% (73.6% for micro/macrometastases and 82.3% for macrometastases), Sp and PPV were 100% in all cases. NPV was 92.1% overall (93.4% micro/macrometastases and 96% in macrometastases).Global accuracy was 93.3% (94.4% for micro/macrometastases and 96% for in macrometastases). Conclusions ITIC is excellent to detect macrometastases, however, it fails to detect micrometastases. False negative imprints for macrometastases are mainly due to sampling error. The immediate availability, low cost, high Sp, PPV, preservation of the lymph node for histopathologic examination, avoiding of a second surgery are the major advantages of intraoperative evaluation of SLN.

Keywords

Breast cancer sentinel lymph node Touch imprint cytology 

References

  1. 1.
    Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE. Relation of tumor size, lymph node status and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer. 1989;63:181–7. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19890101)63:1<181::AID-CNCR2820630129>3.0.CO;2-H.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fisher ER, Sass R, Fisher B. Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Project for breast cancers (protocol no. 4). Cancer. 1984;53:712–23. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19840201)53:3+<712::AID-CNCR2820531320>3.0.CO;2-I.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haagensen CD. The surgical treatment of mammary carcinoma: in diseases of the breast. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1971.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ivens D, Hoe AL, Podd TJ, Hamilton CR, Taylor I, Toyle GT. Assessment of morbidity from complete axillary dissection. Br J Cancer. 1992;66:136–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kissin MW, Querci della Rovere G, Easton D, Westbury G. Risk of lymphoedema following the treatment of breast cancer. Br J Surg. 1986;73:580–4. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800730723.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cserni G. Pathological evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2007;16:17–34. doi: 10.1016/j.soc.2006.10.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Turner RR, Oliilla DW, Krasne DL, Giuliano AE. Histopathologic validation of the sentinel lymph node hypothesis for breast carcinoma. Ann Surg. 1997;226:271–8. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199709000-00006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mabry H, Giuliano AE. Sentinel node mapping for breast cancer: progress to date and prospects for the future. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2007;16:55–70. doi: 10.1016/j.soc.2006.10.015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Menes TS, Tartter PI, Mizrachi H, Rosenbaum S, Estabrook A. Touch preparation or frozen section for intraoperative detection of sentinel lymph node metastases from breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10:1166–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cserni G, Amendoeira I, Apostolikas N, et al. Pathological work-up of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer. Review of current data to be considered for the formulation of guidelines. Eur J Cancer. 2003;39:1654–67. doi: 10.1016/S0959-8049(03)00203-X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Viale G, Luini A, Zurrida S, et al. Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy as a staging procedure in breast cancer: update of a randomised controlled study. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:983–90. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70947-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuehn T, Bembenek A, Decker T, Munz DL, et al. A concept for the clinical implementation of sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with breast carcinoma with special regard to quality assurance. Cancer. 2005;103:451–61. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20786.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rubio IT, Korourian S, Cowan C, Krag DN, Colvert M, Klimberg VS. Use touch preps for intraoperative diagnosis of sentinel lymph node metastases in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 1998;5:689–94. doi: 10.1007/BF02303478.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ratanawichitrasin A, Biscotti CV, Levy L, Crowe JP. Touch imprint cytological analysis of sentinel lymph nodes for detecting axillary metastases in patients with breast cancer. B J Surg. 1999;86:1346–9. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.1999.01212.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Motomura K, Inaji H, Komoike Y, Kasugai T, Nagumo S, Noguchi S, et al. Intraoperative sentinel lymph node examination by imprint cytology and frozen section during breast surgery. Br J Surg. 2000;87:597–601. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01423.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cox C, Centeno B, Dickson D, Clark J, Nicosia S, Dupont E, et al. Accuracy of intraoperative imprint cytology for sentinel lymph node evaluation in the treatment of breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2005;105:13–20. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20738.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tew K, Irwing L, Matthews A, Crowe P, Macaskill P. Meta-analysis of sentinel node imprint cytology in breast cancer. B J Surg. 2005;92:1068–80. doi: 10.1002/bjs.5139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Contractor K et al. Intra-operative imprint cytology for assessing the sentinel node in breast cancer—results of its routine use over 8 years. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008. doi:  10.1016/j.ejsc.2008.04.005.
  19. 19.
    Motomura K, Naguno S, Comoike Y, Koyama H, Inaji H. Intraoperative imprint cytology for the diagnosis of sentinel lymph node metastases in breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2007;14:350–3. doi: 10.2325/jbcs.14.350.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. M. Pérez-Sánchez
    • 1
  • T. A. Vela-Chávez
    • 1
  • P. Villarreal-Colin
    • 2
  • E. Bargalló-Rocha
    • 2
  • M. T. Ramírez-Ugalde
    • 2
  • D. Munoz-Gonzalez
    • 2
  • I. Zeichner-Gancz
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Pathology DepartmentInstituto Nacional de Cancerología MéxicoMéxicoMéxico
  2. 2.Breast Cancer DepartmentInstituto Nacional de Cancerología MéxicoMéxicoMéxico
  3. 3.Clinical Research DepartmentInstituto Nacional de Cancerología MéxicoMéxicoMéxico

Personalised recommendations