Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 1237–1245 | Cite as

Sentinel Node Biopsy Using a Magnetic Tracer Versus Standard Technique: The SentiMAG Multicentre Trial

  • Michael Douek
  • Joost Klaase
  • Ian Monypenny
  • Ashutosh Kothari
  • Katalin Zechmeister
  • Douglas Brown
  • Lynda Wyld
  • Philip Drew
  • Hans Garmo
  • Olorunsola Agbaje
  • Quentin Pankhurst
  • Bauke Anninga
  • Maarten Grootendorst
  • Bennie ten Haken
  • Margaret A. Hall-Craggs
  • Arnie Purushotham
  • Sarah Pinder
  • On behalf of the SentiMAG Trialists Group
Breast Oncology

Abstract

Background

The SentiMAG Multicentre Trial evaluated a new magnetic technique for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) against the standard (radioisotope and blue dye or radioisotope alone). The magnetic technique does not use radiation and provides both a color change (brown dye) and a handheld probe for node localization. The primary end point of this trial was defined as the proportion of sentinel nodes detected with each technique (identification rate).

Methods

A total of 160 women with breast cancer scheduled for SLNB, who were clinically and radiologically node negative, were recruited from seven centers in the United Kingdom and The Netherlands. SLNB was undertaken after administration of both the magnetic and standard tracers (radioisotope with or without blue dye).

Results

A total of 170 SLNB procedures were undertaken on 161 patients, and 1 patient was excluded, leaving 160 patients for further analysis. The identification rate was 95.0 % (152 of 160) with the standard technique and 94.4 % (151 of 160) with the magnetic technique (0.6 % difference; 95 % upper confidence limit 4.4 %; 6.9 % discordance). Of the 22 % (35 of 160) of patients with lymph node involvement, 16 % (25 of 160) had at least 1 macrometastasis, and 6 % (10 of 160) had at least a micrometastasis. Another 2.5 % (4 of 160) had isolated tumor cells. Of 404 lymph nodes removed, 297 (74 %) were true sentinel nodes. The lymph node retrieval rate was 2.5 nodes per patient overall, 1.9 nodes per patient with the standard technique, and 2.0 nodes per patient with the magnetic technique.

Conclusions

The magnetic technique is a feasible technique for SLNB, with an identification rate that is not inferior to the standard technique.

References

  1. 1.
    Cabanas RM. An approach for the treatment of penile carcinoma. Cancer. 1977;39:456–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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;98:599–609.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cody HS III, Fey J, Akhurst T, et al. Complementarity of blue dye and isotope in sentinel node localization for breast cancer: univariate and multivariate analysis of 966 procedures. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001;8:13–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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;23:7703–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Straver ME, Meijnen P, van Tienhoven G, et al. Sentinel node identification rate and nodal involvement in the EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1854–61.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goyal A, Newcombe RG, Chhabra A, Mansel RE. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    White V, Harvey JR, Griffith CD, Youssef M, Carr M. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in early breast cancer surgery: working with the risks of vital blue dye to reap the benefits. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37:101–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giuliano AE, Kirgan DM, Guenther JM, Morton DL. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymphadenectomy for breast cancer. Ann Surg. 1994;220:391–8; discussion 398–401.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Joshi T, Pankhurst QA, Hattersley S, et al. Magnetic nanoparticles for detecting cancer spread. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;1006(Suppl. 1):S129.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnson L, Douek M. Magnetic sentinel lymph node detection for breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2010;70:140s.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gunasekera UA, Pankhurst QA, Douek M. Imaging applications of nanotechnology in cancer. Target Oncol. 2009;4:169–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johnson L, Gunasekera A, Douek M. Applications of nanotechnology in cancer. Discov Med. 2010;9:374–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnson L, Pinder SE, Douek M. Deposition of superparamagnetic iron-oxide nanoparticles in axillary sentinel lymph nodes following subcutaneous injection. Histopathology. 2013;62:481–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Motomura K, Ishitobi M, Komoike Y, et al. SPIO-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of metastases in sentinel nodes localized by computed tomography lymphography in patients with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3422–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cserni G, Bianchi S, Boecker W, et al. Improving the reproducibility of diagnosing micrometastases and isolated tumor cells. Cancer. 2005;103:358–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Newcombe RG. Improved confidence intervals for the difference between binomial proportions based on paired data. Stat Med. 1998;17:2635–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wishart GC, Loh SW, Jones L, Benson JR. 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;38:651–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Motomura K, Inaji H, Komoike Y, Kasugai T, Noguchi S, Koyama H. Sentinel node biopsy guided by indocyanine green dye in breast cancer patients. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 1999;29:604–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Takeuchi M, Sugie T, Abdelazeem K, et al. Lymphatic mapping with fluorescence navigation using indocyanine green and axillary surgery in patients with primary breast cancer. Breast J. 2012;18:535–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sugie T, Sawada T, Tagaya N, et al. Comparison of the indocyanine green fluorescence and blue dye methods in detection of sentinel lymph nodes in early-stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:2213–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Abe H, Mori T, Umeda T, et al. Indocyanine green fluorescence imaging system for sentinel lymph node biopsies in early breast cancer patients. Surg Today. 2011;41:197–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hojo T, Nagao T, Kikuyama M, Akashi S, Kinoshita T. Evaluation of sentinel node biopsy by combined fluorescent and dye method and lymph flow for breast cancer. Breast. 2010;19:210–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Troyan SL, Kianzad V, Gibbs-Strauss SL, et al. The FLARE intraoperative near-infrared fluorescence imaging system: a first-in-human clinical trial in breast cancer sentinel lymph node mapping. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2943–52.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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;19:4104–11.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Douek
    • 1
    • 2
  • Joost Klaase
    • 3
  • Ian Monypenny
    • 4
  • Ashutosh Kothari
    • 2
  • Katalin Zechmeister
    • 5
  • Douglas Brown
    • 6
  • Lynda Wyld
    • 7
  • Philip Drew
    • 8
  • Hans Garmo
    • 1
  • Olorunsola Agbaje
    • 1
  • Quentin Pankhurst
    • 9
  • Bauke Anninga
    • 1
    • 10
  • Maarten Grootendorst
    • 1
    • 10
  • Bennie ten Haken
    • 10
  • Margaret A. Hall-Craggs
    • 11
  • Arnie Purushotham
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sarah Pinder
    • 1
    • 2
  • On behalf of the SentiMAG Trialists Group
  1. 1.Division of Cancer Studies, Department of Research OncologyKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Guy’s & St. Thomas’ Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
  3. 3.Medisch Spectrum TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  4. 4.University Hospital of Wales at LlandoughCardiffUK
  5. 5.Norwich and Norfolk University HospitalsNorwichUK
  6. 6.Ninewells Hospital and Medical SchoolDundeeUK
  7. 7.University of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  8. 8.Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS TrustTruroUK
  9. 9.University College LondonLondonUK
  10. 10.University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  11. 11.University College HospitalLondonUK

Personalised recommendations