Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 17, Supplement 3, pp 297–302 | Cite as

Factors Associated with Variance in Compliance with a Sentinel Lymph Node Dissection Quality Measure in Early-Stage Breast Cancer

  • Windy Olaya
  • Jan Wong
  • John W. Morgan
  • Caitlyn Truong
  • Sharmila Roy-Chowdhury
  • Kevork Kazanjian
  • Sharon Lum
American Society of Breast Surgeons



Guidelines recommend sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) for patients with clinical stage I/IIA/IIB breast cancer; however, a significant fraction of patients do not undergo this procedure. We sought to identify factors associated with noncompliance with the SLND benchmark in early-stage breast cancer.

Materials and Methods

All patients with an initial diagnosis of Stage I/IIA/IIB invasive breast carcinoma who were treated between 2004 and 2007 with records in the California Cancer Registry were evaluated. Odds ratios evaluating receipt of SLND were compared for sex, age, stage, socioeconomic status (SES), race/ethnicity, surgery type, year of diagnosis, and hospital cancer program approval from the American College of Surgery (ACOS).


Of 55,207 patients identified, 66% underwent SLND. On multivariable analyses, patients were significantly less likely to undergo SLND if they were >65 years of age, stage IIA or IIB, of lower socioeconomic status, of nonwhite race/ethnicity, treated with total mastectomy, treated during 2004–2005, or at a non-ACOS approved institution.


SLND use in California has increased over time; however, only two-thirds of eligible patients undergo this recommended procedure. Using SLND as a quality measure demonstrates significant disparities that have implications not only for patient and provider education, but also for health care policy and reform.



This study was supported in part by NCI/SEER contracts No. N01-PC-35136, N01-PC-35139, and N02-PC-15105, CDC/National Program for Cancer Registries contract No. U58DP000807-01, and the California Department of Public Health, Cancer Surveillance Branch.


  1. 1.
    Goyal A, Newcombe RG, Chhabra A, Mansel RE. ALMANAC Trialists Group. 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;99:203–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Krag D, Weaver D, Ashikaga T, Moffat F, Klimberg VS, Shriver C, et al. The sentinel node in breast cancer—a multicenter validation study. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:941–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blanchard DK, Donohue JH, Reynolds C, Grant CS. Relapse and morbidity in patients undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy alone or with axillary dissection for breast cancer. Arch Surg. 2003;138:482–7; discussion 487–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lyman GH, Giuliano AE, Somerfield MR, Benson AB III, Bodurka DC, Burstein HJ, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7703–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gill G. Sentinel-lymph-node-based management or routine axillary clearance? One-year outcomes of sentinel node biopsy versus axillary clearance (SNAC): a randomized controlled surgical trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:266–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology Breast Cancer v.2.2010. Available: Accessed 20 Apr 2010.
  7. 7.
    Malin JL, Schneider EC, Epstein AM, Adams J, Emanuel EJ, Kahn KL. Results of the national initiative for cancer care quality: how can we improve the quality of caner care in the United States? J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:626–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Percentage of women with Stage I-IIb breast cancer that received either axillary node dissection or Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy (SLNB) at the time of surgery (lumpectomy or mastectomy). Available: Accessed 20 Apr 2010.
  9. 9.
    Breast Center Standards Manual. Available: Accessed 20 Apr 2010.
  10. 10.
    Chen AY, Halpern MT, Schrag NM, Stewart A, Leitch M, Ward E. Disparities and trends in sentinel lymph node biopsy among early-stage breast cancer patients (1998–2005). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:462–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yost K, Perkins C, Cohen R, Morris C, Wright W. Socioeconomic status and breast cancer incidence in California for different race/ethnic groups. Cancer Causes Control. 2001;12:703–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Truong PT, Bernstein V, Wai E, Chua B, Speers C, Olivotto IA. Age-related variations in the use of axillary dissection: a survival analysis of 8038 women with T1-ST2 breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54:794–803.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Edge SB, Niland JC, Bookman MA, Theriault RL, Ottesen R, Lepisto E, et al. Emergence of sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer as standard-of-care in academic comprehensive cancer centers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:1514–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gobbi PG, Broglia C, Carnevale Maffe G, Ruga A, Molinari E, Ascari E. Lymphomatous superficial lymph nodes: limitations of physical examination for accurate staging and response assessment. Haematologica. 2002;87:1151–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bilimoria KY, Balch CM, Wayne JD, Chang DC, Palis BE, Dy SM, et al. Health care system and socioeconomic factors associated with variance in use of sentinel lymph node biopsy for melanoma in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1857–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Naik AM, Joseph K, Harris M, Davis C, Shapiro R, Hiotis KL. Indigent breast cancer patients among all racial and ethnic groups present with more advance disease compared with nationally reported data. Am J Surg. 2003;186:400–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rescigno J, Zampell JC, Axelrod D. Patterns of axillary surgical care for breast cancer in the era of sentinel lymph node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:687–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    California QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. Available: Accessed 20 Apr 2010.
  19. 19.
    Tan J, Bagnell M, Morgan J, Wong JH, Roy-Chowdhury S, Lum SS. The identification and treatment of isolated tumor cells reflect disparities in the delivery of breast cancer care. Am J Surg. 2009;198:508–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Olaya W, Wong JH, Morgan JW, Roy-Chowdhury S, Lum SS. Disparities in the surgical management of women with stage I breast cancer. Am Surg. 2009;75:869–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tan MP. Surmounting the challenges of sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer in non-tertiary centres and community-based practices. ANZ J Surg. 2006;76:306–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zork NM, Komenaka IK, Pennington RE Jr, Bowling MW, Norton LE, Clare SE, et al. The effect of dedicated breast surgeons on the short-term outcomes in breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2008;248:280–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rao R, Lilley L, Andrews V, Radford L, Ulissey M. Axillary staging by percutaneous biopsy: sensitivity of fine-needle aspiration versus core needle biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1170–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McCahill LE, Privette A, James T, Sheehey-Jones J, Ratliff J, Majercik D, et al. Quality measures for breast cancer surgery: initial validation of feasibility and assessment of variation among surgeons. Arch Surg. 2009;144:455–62; discussion 462–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Windy Olaya
    • 1
  • Jan Wong
    • 1
  • John W. Morgan
    • 2
    • 3
  • Caitlyn Truong
    • 1
  • Sharmila Roy-Chowdhury
    • 1
  • Kevork Kazanjian
    • 1
  • Sharon Lum
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical OncologyLoma Linda University School of MedicineLoma LindaUSA
  2. 2.School of Public HealthLoma Linda UniversityLoma LindaUSA
  3. 3.California Cancer RegistryDesert Sierra Cancer Surveillance Program, Loma Linda University Medical CenterLoma LindaUSA

Personalised recommendations