Abstract
Background
Touch imprint cytology (TIC) is a fast, cheap and specific intraoperative examination of the sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) in early breast cancer patients. The results of TIC in patients with ultrasonically (US) uninvolved axillary lymph nodes are not known. The objective of our study was to compare the results of TIC in the patients with US uninvolved axillary lymph nodes (US group) and those with only clinically uninvolved axillary lymph nodes (non-US group).
Methods
A total of 470 patients were included in the study, 257 in the US group and 213 in the non-US group. TIC results were compared to the definite histology, and the sensitivity of TIC was calculated for both groups of patients. A subgroup analysis of TIC findings with regard to the primary tumor size was performed.
Results
Overall sensitivity and sensitivity for detecting macrometastases was significantly lower in the US group compared with the non-US group. In the US group, TIC results changed the course of treatment in 9% of patients, while in the non-US group, the course of treatment was changed in 22% of patients. In the non-US group, the proportion of positive TIC results increased with increasing tumor size, whereas in the US group it did not.
Conclusion
The sensitivity of TIC is lower in the patients with US uninvolved axillary lymph nodes compared to those with only clinically uninvolved axillary lymph nodes. TIC might not be indicated in patients with US uninvolved axillary lymph nodes as it changes the course of treatment in only 9% of patients.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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; 349:546–53
Degnim AC, Griffith KA, Sabel MS, et al. Clinicopathologic features of metastasis in nonsentinel lymph nodes of breast carcinoma patients. Cancer 2003; 98:2307–15
Wada N, Imoto S, Hasebe T, et al. Evaluation of intraoperative frozen section diagnosis of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2004; 34:113–7
Gulec SA, Su J, O’Leary JP, et al. Clinical utility of frozen section in sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer. Am Surg 2001; 67:529–32
Tanis PJ, Boom RP, Koops HS, et al. Frozen section investigation of the sentinel node in malignant melanoma and breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2001; 8:222–6
Motomura K, Inaji H, Komoike Y, et al. Intraoperative sentinel lymph node examination by imprint cytology and frozen sectioning during breast surgery. Br J Surg 2000; 87:597–601
Weiser MR, Montgomery LL, Susnik B, et al. Is routine intraoperative frozen-section examination of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer worthwhile? Ann Surg Oncol 2000; 7:651–5
Viale G, Bosari S, Mazzarol G, et al. Intraoperative examination of axillary sentinel lymph nodes in breast carcinoma patients. Cancer 1999; 85:2433–8
Chicken DW, Kocjan G, Falzon M, et al. Intraoperative touch imprint cytology for the diagnosis of sentinel lymph node metastases in breast cancer. Br J Surg 2006; 93:572–6
Cox C, Centeno B, Dickson D, et al. Accuracy of intraoperative imprint cytology for sentinel lymph node evaluation in the treatment of breast carcinoma. Cancer 2005; 105:13–20
Barranger E, Antoine M, Grahek D, et al. Intraoperative imprint cytology of sentinel nodes in breast cancer. J Surg Oncol 2004; 86:128–33
Zgajnar J, Frkovic-Grazio S, Besic N, et al. Low sensitivity of the touch imprint cytology of the sentinel lymph node in breast cancer patients–Results of a large series. J Surg Oncol 2004; 85:82–6
Creager AJ, Geisinger KR, Shiver SA, et al. Intraoperative evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes for metastatic breast carcinoma by imprint cytology. Mod Pathol 2002; 15:1140–7
Henry-Tillman RS, Korourian S, Rubio IT, et al. Intraoperative touch preparation for sentinel lymph node biopsy: a 4-year experience. Ann Surg Oncol 2002; 9:333–9
Ratanawichitrasin A, Biscotti CV, Levy L, et al. Touch imprint cytological analysis of sentinel lymph nodes for detecting axillary metastases in patients with breast cancer. Br J Surg 1999; 86:1346–8
Rubio IT, Korourian S, Cowan C, et al. Use of touch preps for intraoperative diagnosis of sentinel lymph node metastases in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 1998; 5:689–94
Menes TS, Tartter PI, Mizrachi H, et al. Touch preparation or frozen section for intraoperative detection of sentinel lymph node metastases from breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2003; 10:1166–70
Brogi E, Torres-Matundan E, Tan LK, et al. The results of frozen section, touch preparation, and cytological smear are comparable for intraoperative examination of sentinel lymph nodes: a study in 133 breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2005; 12:173–80
Tew K, Irwig L, Matthews A, et al. Meta-analysis of sentinel node imprint cytology in breast cancer. Br J Surg 2005; 92:1068–80
Zgajnar J, Hocevar M, Podkrajsek M, et al. Patients with preoperatively ultrasonically uninvolved axillary lymph nodes: a distinct subgroup of early breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006; 97:293–9
Podkrajsek M, Music MM, Kadivec M, et al. Role of ultrasound in the preoperative staging of patients with breast cancer. Eur Radiol 2005; 15:1044–50
Sobin LH, Wittekind CH. UICC TNM classification of malignant tumours, 6th Edition. New York: Wiley, 2002
Bochner MA, Farshid G, Dodd TJ, et al. Intraoperative imprint cytologic assessment of the sentinel node for early breast cancer. World J Surg 2003; 27:430–2
Lee A, Krishnamurthy S, Sahin A, et al. Intraoperative touch imprint of sentinel lymph nodes in breast carcinoma patients. Cancer 2002; 96:225–31
Rutledge H, Davis J, Chiu R, et al. Sentinel node micrometastasis in breast carcinoma may not be an indication for complete axillary dissection. Mod Pathol 2005; 18:762–8
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Perhavec, A., Besić, N., Hočevar, M. et al. Touch Imprint Cytology of the Sentinel Lymph Nodes Might Not Be Indicated in Early Breast Cancer Patients with Ultrasonically Uninvolved Axillary Lymph Nodes. Ann Surg Oncol 15, 2257–2262 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-008-9957-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-008-9957-3