Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quality Indicators for Sentinel Node Surgery

  • Local-Regional Evaluation and Therapy (KK Hunt, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Breast Cancer Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Surgical quality has historically been measured on the basis of the short-term morbidity and mortality. However, mortality from and immediate complications associated with breast and axillary surgery are extremely low and, therefore, are not adequate indicators of the quality of a particular operation for a patient with a breast malignancy. Unlike the introduction of novel laparoscopic techniques for abdominal surgery, for which clinical trial evaluation has been infrequent, the sentinel node mapping and nodal dissection (SLND) procedure has undergone intense retrospective and prospective clinical scrutiny throughout its development and widespread inclusion in surgical practice. SLND for breast cancer was introduced over 20 years ago and was performed in association with axillary dissection to identify the sentinel nodes and determine the number of false negatives, thereby ensuring low incidence of inaccurate oncologic staging. The original studies used a single mapping agent; this progressed to use of combination techniques with more than one mapping agent over the next five years. Sentinel lymph node mapping and dissection is now the operation of choice for patients with early-stage breast cancer. Outcomes can now be measured without requiring measurement of the number of false negatives, because use of axillary dissection is now infrequently co-associated with SLND. As novel dyes and agents are being introduced and as indications for SLND among patients with advanced breast cancer after neoadjuvant systemic treatment are expanding, evaluation of alternative indicators will be needed to determine the best indicators of quality for adequate staging and continued low procedural morbidity. Indicators of quality of SLND are reviewed in this paper. How these indicators will aid evaluation of innovative nodal techniques for patients with a breast malignancy is also discussed.

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

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. Del Turco MR, Ponti A, Bick U, et al. Quality indicators in breast cancer care. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(13):2344–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Desch CE, McNiff KK, Schneider EC, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/National Comprehensive Cancer Network Quality Measures. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(21):3631–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hassett MJ, Hughes ME, Niland JC, et al. Selecting high priority quality measures for breast cancer quality improvement. Med Care. 2008;46(8):762–70.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cabanas RM. An approach for the treatment of penile carcinoma. Cancer. 1977;39(2):456–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Giuliano AE, Dale PS, Turner RR, et al. Improved axillary staging of breast cancer with sentinel lymphadenectomy. Ann Surg. 1995;222(3):394–9. discussion 399–401.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Krag D, Weaver D, Ashikaga T, et al. The sentinel node in breast cancer–a multicenter validation study. N Engl J Med. 1998;339(14):941–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Reintgen D, Joseph E, Lyman GH, et al. The Role of Selective Lymphadenectomy in Breast Cancer. Cancer Control. 1997;4(3):211–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cox CE, Pendas S, Cox JM, et al. Guidelines for sentinel node biopsy and lymphatic mapping of patients with breast cancer. Ann Surg. 1998;227(5):645–51. discussion 651–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, et al. Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(10):927–33. Multicenter, randomized controlled trial of 5,611 women assigned to SLND plus ALND or SLND alone and ALND only if SLNs were positive. Overall survival, disease-free survival, and regional control equivalent between the groups.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, et al. Technical outcomes of sentinel-lymph-node resection and conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer: results from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase III trial. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(10):881–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Goyal A, Newcombe RG, Chhabra A, et al. Factors affecting failed localisation and false-negative rates of sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer–results of the ALMANAC validation phase. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;99(2):203–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lyman GH, Giuliano AE, Somerfield MR, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(30):7703–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bonnema J, van de Velde CJ. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2002;13(10):1531–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sakorafas GH, Tsiotou AG. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer. Am Surg. 2000;66(7):667–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Giuliano AE, McCall L, Beitsch P, et al. Locoregional recurrence after sentinel lymph node dissection with or without axillary dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node metastases: the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2010;252(3):426–32. discussion 432–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2011;305(6):569–75. In ACOSOG Z0011, patients with T1 or T2 disease and clinically negative nodes found to have 1 or 2 positive SLNs on H&E staining were randomized to completion ALND or no further surgery. Disease-free survival, overall survival, axillary recurrence, and in-breast recurrence were similar after 6.3 years of follow-up.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Verry H, Lord SJ, Martin A, et al. 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. 2012;106(6):1045–52. An Australian study utilizing a Markov decision model estimated that over a 20-year span, patients undergoing SLNB gained eight quality-adjusted life years compared with ALND. SLNB saved $883,000 per 1000 patients. SLNB was only less effective when the number of FNR was >13 %.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Network NCC. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Breast Cancer. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf. Accessed November 1, 2013.

  20. Malin JL, Schneider EC, Epstein AM, et al. Results of the National Initiative for Cancer Care Quality: how can we improve the quality of cancer care in the United States? J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(4):626–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Quan ML, Wells BJ, McCready D, et al. Beyond the false negative rate: development of quality indicators for sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(2):579–91. A modified Delphi consensus process was used at the University of Toronto to ultimately develop 11 quality indicators for assessing the quality of SLNB. These included axillary node positivity, procedure for injection of radiocolloid, proper identification of the SLN, number of nodes removed >1, type of pathologic evaluation and reporting according to AJCC criteria, SLNB performed in conjunction with primary breast surgery, completion ALND for positive SLNB, whether SLNB was performed in eligible or ineligible patients, and axillary recurrence.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wells B, Saskin R, Wright F, et al. Measuring the quality of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for breast cancer: a population-based evaluation. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(2):615–9. Eight of the 11 quality indicators described by Quan et. al. were evaluated on a population of 2,323 patients identified by use of the Ontario Cancer Registry in 2005. Over 90 % of patients had properly identified SLNs and appropriate timing of SLNB with their primary breast procedure. Hospital volume, urban or rural setting, and academic vs community practice did not affect quality.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Acuna SA, Angarita FA, McCready DR, et al. Quality indicators for sentinel lymph node biopsy: is there room for improvement? Can J Surg. 2013;56(2):82–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Krag DN, Ashikaga T, Harlow SP, et al. Surgeon training, protocol compliance, and technical outcomes from breast cancer sentinel lymph node randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(19):1356–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rubello D, Zavagno G, Bozza F, et al. Analysis of technical and clinical variables affecting sentinel node localization in patients with breast cancer after a single intradermal injection of 99mTc nanocolloidal albumin. Nucl Med Commun. 2004;25(11):1119–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tafra L, Lannin DR, Swanson MS, et al. Multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer using both technetium sulfur colloid and isosulfan blue dye. Ann Surg. 2001;233(1):51–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. McMasters KM, Tuttle TM, Carlson DJ, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer: a suitable alternative to routine axillary dissection in multi-institutional practice when optimal technique is used. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(13):2560–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Martin RC, Edwards MJ, Wong SL, et al. Practical guidelines for optimal gamma probe detection of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer: results of a multi-institutional study. For the University of Louisville Breast Cancer Study Group. Surgery. 2000;128(2):139–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Thompson AM. New standards of care in the management of the axilla. Curr Opin Oncol. 2012;24(6):605–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Viale G, et al. A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(6):546–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bernardi S, Bertozzi S, Londero AP, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of intraoperative identification failure of sentinel lymph nodes in patients affected by breast cancer. Nucl Med Commun. 2013;34(7):664–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Pesek S, Ashikaga T, Krag LE, et al. The false-negative rate of sentinel node biopsy in patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg. 2012;36(9):2239–51.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA, et al. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer: the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310(14):1455–61. Multicenter trial of women with clinical T0–T4, N1, or N2 disease who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and then underwent SLND and ALND. The number of FNR from SLND was 12.6 %, higher than expected, therefore SLND can not be recommended as an alternative to ALND.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Wishart GC, Loh SW, Jones L, et al. A feasibility study (ICG-10) of indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence mapping for sentinel lymph node detection in early breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38(8):651–6. One-hundred women with clinically node-negative breast cancer underwent SLND using a combination of blue dye, radiocolloid, and indocyanine green. Detection was 100 % for ICG alone, 95 % for ICG with blue dye, and 77.2 % for ICG and radiocolloid.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hirano A, Kamimura M, Ogura K, et al. A comparison of indocyanine green fluorescence imaging plus blue dye and blue dye alone for sentinel node navigation surgery in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(13):4112–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Schaafsma BE, Verbeek FP, Rietbergen DD, et al. Clinical trial of combined radio- and fluorescence-guided sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2013;100(8):1037–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. van der Vorst JR, Schaafsma BE, Verbeek FP, et al. Randomized comparison of near-infrared fluorescence imaging using indocyanine green and 99(m) technetium with or without patent blue for the sentinel lymph node procedure in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(13):4104–11.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. McCahill LE, Privette A, James T, et al. Quality measures for breast cancer surgery: initial validation of feasibility and assessment of variation among surgeons. Arch Surg. 2009;144(5):455–62. discussion 462–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Chagpar AB, Scoggins CR, Martin RC, et al. Factors determining adequacy of axillary node dissection in breast cancer patients. Breast J. 2007;13(3):233–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Yi M, Meric-Bernstam F, Ross MI, et al. How many sentinel lymph nodes are enough during sentinel lymph node dissection for breast cancer? Cancer. 2008;113(1):30–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wong SL, Edwards MJ, Chao C, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer: impact of the number of sentinel nodes removed on the false-negative rate. J Am Coll Surg. 2001;192(6):684–9. discussion 689–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. McCarter MD, Yeung H, Fey J, et al. The breast cancer patient with multiple sentinel nodes: when to stop? J Am Coll Surg. 2001;192(6):692–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Chagpar AB, Scoggins CR, Martin RC, et al. Are 3 sentinel nodes sufficient? Arch Surg. 2007;142(5):456–9. discussion 459–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ballardini B, Santoro L, Sangalli C, et al. The indocyanine green method is equivalent to the (99m)Tc-labeled radiotracer method for identifying the sentinel node in breast cancer: a concordance and validation study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39(12):1332–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hunt KK, Yi M, Mittendorf EA, et al. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is accurate and reduces the need for axillary dissection in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg. 2009;250(4):558–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kell MR, Burke JP, Barry M, et al. Outcome of axillary staging in early breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;120(2):441–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Giuliano AE, Hawes D, Ballman KV, et al. Association of occult metastases in sentinel lymph nodes and bone marrow with survival among women with early-stage invasive breast cancer. JAMA. 2011;306(4):385–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Tousimis E, Van Zee KJ, Fey JV, et al. The accuracy of sentinel lymph node biopsy in multicentric and multifocal invasive breast cancers. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;197(4):529–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Knauer M, Konstantiniuk P, Haid A, et al. Multicentric breast cancer: a new indication for sentinel node biopsy–a multi-institutional validation study. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(21):3374–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Giard S, Chauvet MP, Penel N, et al. Feasibility of sentinel lymph node biopsy in multiple unilateral synchronous breast cancer: results of a French prospective multi-institutional study (IGASSU 0502). Ann Oncol. 2010;21(8):1630–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Landercasper J, Ellis RL, Mathiason MA, et al. A community breast center report card determined by participation in the national quality measures for breast centers program. Breast J. 2010;16(5):472–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Barbara Z. Dull and Lee G. Wilke declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, H4/722 CSC, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI, 53792, USA

    Barbara Z. Dull & Lee G. Wilke

Authors
  1. Barbara Z. Dull
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lee G. Wilke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lee G. Wilke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dull, B.Z., Wilke, L.G. Quality Indicators for Sentinel Node Surgery. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 6, 3–9 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-013-0136-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-013-0136-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation