Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 1143–1147 | Cite as

Measurement of Uterine Radiation Exposure from Lymphoscintigraphy Indicates Safety of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy during Pregnancy

  • Philip M. Spanheimer
  • Michael M. Graham
  • Sonia L. Sugg
  • Carol E. H. Scott-Conner
  • Ronald J. Weigel
Breast Oncology

Abstract

Background

There is an increased incidence of breast cancer occurring during pregnancy. Controversy exists as to the safety of performing lymphoscintigraphy during pregnancy and no studies have reported the measured dose of uterine radiation.

Methods

We performed an institutional review board (IRB)-approved prospective study of uterine radiation resulting from lymphoscintigraphy. Abdominal, perineal, and urinary radiation was measured in 14 breast cancer patients and total uterine dose was calculated.

Results

The average dose of 99m-Tc sulfur colloid was 39 ± 20 MBq (1.04 ± 0.53 mCi). Measured abdominal and pelvic radiation exposure demonstrated no correlation with patient age or body mass index. The average abdominal radiation exposure was 1.17 ± 0.87 μGy. The average perineal radiation exposure was 0.23 ± 0.17 μGy. The average dose to the uterus from bladder radioactivity determined from voided urine was 0.44 ± 0.44 μGy. The average radiation dose to the uterus (average of abdominal and perineal doses plus contribution from bladder dose) was 1.14 ± 0.76 μGy. One patient was 16 weeks pregnant at the time of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and total calculated uterine dose was 1.67 μGy, suggesting that pregnancy does not significantly alter measured uterine radiation. These data were compared with the average background radiation, which is 3,000 μGy per year or 8.2 μGy per day.

Conclusions

The measured uterine dose of radiation from lymphoscintigraphy for SLNB was significantly less than the average daily background radiation. We conclude that lymphoscintigraphy does not expose the fetus to significant radiation and concern of radiation exposure should not preclude the use of SLNB during pregnancy.

Keywords

Breast Cancer Sentinel Lymph Node Methylene Blue Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Axillary Lymph Node Dissection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Fisher B, Slack N, Katrych D, Wolmark N. Ten year follow-up results of patients with carcinoma of the breast in a co-operative clinical trial evaluating surgical adjuvant chemotherapy. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1975;140(4):528–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benson JR, della Rovere GQ. Management of the axilla in women with breast cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(4):331–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hack TF, Cohen L, Katz J, Robson LS, Goss P. Physical and psychological morbidity after axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(1):143–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Petrek JA, Heelan MC. Incidence of breast carcinoma-related lymphedema. Cancer. 1998;83(12 Suppl American):2776–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Naik AM, Fey J, Gemignani M, et al. The risk of axillary relapse after sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer is comparable with that of axillary lymph node dissection: a follow-up study of 4008 procedures. Ann Surg. 2004;240(3):462–8; discussion 8–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zakaria S, Pantvaidya G, Reynolds CA, et al. Sentinel node positive breast cancer patients who do not undergo axillary dissection: are they different? Surgery. 2008;143(5):641–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van der Ploeg IM, Nieweg OE, van Rijk MC, Valdes Olmos RA, Kroon BB. Axillary recurrence after a tumour-negative sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Antonelli NM, Dotters DJ, Katz VL, Kuller JA. Cancer in pregnancy: a review of the literature Part I. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1996;51(2):125–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moore HC, Foster RS Jr. Breast cancer and pregnancy. Semin Oncol. 2000;27(6):646–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Filippakis GM, Zografos G. Contraindications of sentinel lymph node biopsy: are there any really? World J Surg Oncol. 2007;5:10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cody HS 3rd. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer: indications, contraindications, and new directions. J Surg Oncol. 2007;95(6):440–2.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Woo JC, Yu T, Hurd TC. Breast cancer in pregnancy: a literature review. Arch Surg. 2003;138(1):91–8; discussion 9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pandit-Taskar N, Dauer LT, Montgomery L, St Germain J, Zanzonico PB, Divgi CR. Organ and fetal absorbed dose estimates from 99mTc-sulfur colloid lymphoscintigraphy and sentinel node localization in breast cancer patients. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(7):1202–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Law M, Cheng KC, Wu PM, Ho WY, Chow LW. Patient effective dose from sentinel lymph node lymphoscintigraphy in breast cancer: a study using a female humanoid phantom and thermoluminescent dosemeters. Br J Radiol. 2003;76(911):818–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Keleher A, Wendt R 3rd, Delpassand E, Stachowiak AM, Kuerer HM. The safety of lymphatic mapping in pregnant breast cancer patients using Tc–99m sulfur colloid. Breast J. 2004;10(6):492–5.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mondi MM, Cuenca RE, Ollila DW, Stewart JHt, Levine EA. Sentinel lymph node biopsy during pregnancy: initial clinical experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14(1):218–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wasserman H, Groenewald W. Air kerma rate constants for radionuclides. Eur J Nucl Med. 1988;14(11):569–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Snyder WS FM, Warner GG, Watson SB. “S” absorbed dose per unit cumulated activity for selected radionuclides and organs. New York: Society of Nuclear Medicine; 1975.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thorne MC. Background radiation: natural and man-made. J Radiol Prot. 2003;23(1):29–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schwartz JL, Mozurkewich EL, Johnson TM. Current management of patients with melanoma who are pregnant, want to get pregnant, or do not want to get pregnant. Cancer. 2003;97(9):2130–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krontiras H, Bland KI. When is sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer contraindicated? Surg Oncol. 2003;12(3):207–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Khera SY, Kiluk JV, Hasson DM, et al. Pregnancy-associated breast cancer patients can safely undergo lymphatic mapping. Breast J. 2008;14(3):250–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bergqvist L, Strand SE, Persson BR. Particle sizing and biokinetics of interstitial lymphoscintigraphic agents. Semin Nucl Med. 1983;13(1):9–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip M. Spanheimer
    • 1
  • Michael M. Graham
    • 2
  • Sonia L. Sugg
    • 1
  • Carol E. H. Scott-Conner
    • 1
  • Ronald J. Weigel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations