Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 25, Issue 10, pp 3030–3036 | Cite as

Improved False-Negative Rates with Intraoperative Identification of Clipped Nodes in Patients Undergoing Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

  • Neslihan Cabıoğlu
  • Hasan Karanlık
  • Dilek Kangal
  • Enver Özkurt
  • Gizem Öner
  • Fatma Sezen
  • Ravza Yılmaz
  • Mustafa Tükenmez
  • Semen Önder
  • Abdullah İğci
  • Vahit Özmen
  • Ahmet Dinççağ
  • Gülgün Engin
  • Mahmut Müslümanoğlu
Breast Oncology

Abstract

Background

Identification and resection of a clipped node was shown to decrease the false-negative rate (FNR) of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for patients presenting with initially node-positive breast cancer.

Methods

Between March 2014 and March 2016, a prospective trial analyzed 98 patients with axilla-positive locally advanced breast cancer (T1-4, N1-3) to assess the feasibility and efficacy of placing clips into most suspicious biopsy-proven node. The study considered blue, radioisotope active, and suspiciously palpable nodes as sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs).

Results

The SLN identification rate was 87.8%. The median age of the patients with an SLNB (n = 86) was 44 years (range 28–66 years). Of these patients, 77 (88.4%) had cT1-3 disease, and 10 (11.6%) had cT4 disease. The majority of the patients (n = 66, 76.7%) had cN1, whereas 21 patients (23.3%) had cN2 and cN3. A combined method was used for 37 patients (43%), whereas blue dye alone was used for the remaining patients (57%). The clipped node was the SLN in 70 patients (81.4%). For the patients with cN1 before NAC, the FNR was found to be 4.2% (1/24) when the clipped node was identified as an SLN. However, the FNR was estimated to be as high as 16.7% (1/6) for the patients with cN1 before NAC when the clipped node was found to be a non-SLN.

Conclusions

The study results also suggest that axillary dissection could be omitted for patients presenting initially with N1 disease and with a negative clipped node as the SLN after NAC due to the low FNR.

Notes

Acknowlegment

The study has been financially supported by the Istanbul Breast Society. The authors also thank Çiğdem Kanbesler for her secterial assistance in data retrieval.

References

  1. 1.
    Buzdar AU, Ibrahim NK, Francis D, et al. Significantly higher pathologic complete remission rate after neoadjuvant therapy with trastuzumab, paclitaxel, and epirubicin chemotherapy: results of a randomized trial in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:3676–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dominici LS, Negron Gonzalez VM, Buzdar AU, et al. Cytologically proven axillary lymph node metastases are eradicated in patients receiving preoperative chemotherapy with concurrent trastuzumab for HER2-positive breast cancer. Cancer. 2010;116:2884–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hennessy BT, Hortobagyi GN, Rouzier R, et al. Outcome after pathologic complete eradication of cytologically proven breast cancer axillary node metastases following primary chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2015;23:9304–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alvarado R, Yi M, Le-Petross H, et al. The role for sentinel lymph node dissection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients who present with node- positive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3177–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA, et al. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer: the ACOSOGZ1071 (Alliance) clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310:1455–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuehn T, Bauerfeind I, Fehm T, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (SENTINA): a prospective, multicentre cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:609–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boughey JC, Ballman KV, Le-Petross HT, et al. Identification and resection of the clipped node decreases the false-negative rate of sentinel lymph node surgery in patients presenting with node positive breast cancer (T0-4, N1-2) who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy-results from ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance). Ann Surg. 2016;263:802–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    AJCC. Cancer staging handbook. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A (eds) AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 7th ed. Springer, New York, 2010.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moore A, Hester M, Nam MW, et al. Distinct lymph nodal sonographic characteristics in breast cancer patients at high risk for axillary metastases correlate with the final axillary stage. Br J Radiol. 2008;81:630–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eroglu A, Mudun A, Ozmen V, et al. Comparison of subdermal and peritumoral injection techniques of lymphoscintigraphy to determine the sentinel lymph node in breast cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2004;29:306–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ozmen V, Unal ES, Muslumanoglu ME, et al. Axillary sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36:23–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    von Minckwitz G, Rezai M, Loibl S, et al: Capecitabine in addition to anthracycline/taxane based neoadjuvant treatment in patients with primary breast cancer: the phase III GeparQuattro study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2015–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Caudle AS, Yang WT, Krishnamurthy S, et al. Improved axillary evaluation following neoadjuvant therapy for patients with node-positive breast cancer using selective evaluation of clipped nodes: implementation of targeted axillary dissection. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1072–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mittendorf EA, Caudle AS, Yang W, et al. Implementation of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z1071 trial data in clinical practice: is there a way forward for sentinel lymph node dissection in clinically node-positive breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy? Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:2468–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Caudle AS, Yang WT, Mittendorf EA, et al. Selective surgical localization of axillary lymph nodes containing metastases in patients with breast cancer: a prospective feasibility trial. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:137–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Diego EJ, McAuliffe PF, Soran A, et al. Axillary staging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: a pilot study combining sentinel lymph node biopsy with radioactive seed localization of pretreatment positive axillary lymph nodes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:1549–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim EY, Byon WS, Lee KH, et al. Feasibility of preoperative axillary lymph node marking with a clip in breast cancer patients before neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a preliminary study. World J Surg. 2018;42:582–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tadros AB, Yang WT, Krishnamurthy S, et al. Identification of patients with documented pathologic complete response in the breast after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for omission of axillary surgery. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:665–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rauch GM, Kuerer HM, Adrada B, et al. Biopsy feasibility trial for breast cancer pathologic complete response detection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: imaging assessment and correlation end points. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:1953–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neslihan Cabıoğlu
    • 1
  • Hasan Karanlık
    • 2
  • Dilek Kangal
    • 3
  • Enver Özkurt
    • 1
  • Gizem Öner
    • 1
  • Fatma Sezen
    • 1
  • Ravza Yılmaz
    • 4
  • Mustafa Tükenmez
    • 1
  • Semen Önder
    • 5
  • Abdullah İğci
    • 1
  • Vahit Özmen
    • 1
  • Ahmet Dinççağ
    • 1
  • Gülgün Engin
    • 3
  • Mahmut Müslümanoğlu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Istanbul Faculty of MedicineIstanbul UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Surgical Oncology, Institute of OncologyUniversity of IstanbulIstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Radiology, Institute of OncologyUniversity of IstanbulIstanbulTurkey
  4. 4.Department of Radiology, Istanbul Faculty of MedicineUniversity of IstanbulIstanbulTurkey
  5. 5.Department of Pathology, Istanbul Faculty of MedicineUniversity of IstanbulIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations