Sentinel Node Detection and Imaging

  • Mohammad R. S. Keshtgar
  • Wendy A. Waddington
  • Sunil R. Lakhani
  • Peter J. Ell

Abstract

The concept of the sentinel node represents a major new opportunity to stratify patients for appropriate surgery in cancer. Present enthusiasm is high judging by the many publications in the peer-reviewed literature, and significant attention is being paid to this subject by editorials in the major medical journals [1–3]. The reports are almost uniformly enthusiastic about the potential of this technique, and guidelines have been published for sentinel node detection in carcinoma of the breast. Patients have become aware of the potential of the technology, and it is not uncommon for patients to inform themselves and request the views of individuals or clinical groups on this new staging procedure. Despite all this enthusiasm, however, there are significant differences in practice relating to almost all aspects of the technology involved. Interestingly, in spite of these differences, in general terms groups are reporting encouraging results. It is therefore useful to review the subject of the detection of the sentinel node, introducing readers to the present areas of uncertainty and providing a critical analysis of the data as they have appeared in the literature.

Keywords

Sulphide Europe Radionuclide Peri Eosin 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dixon M. Sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer. Br Med J1998; 317: 295 – 296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    della Rovere G, Bird PA. Sentinel-lymph-node in breast cancer. Lancet1998; 352: 421 – 422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borgstein PJ. SLN biopsy in breast cancer: guidelines and pitfalls of lymphoscintigraphy and gamma probe detection. J Am Coll Surg 1998; 186:275 – 283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Galimberti V, Viale G, Zurrida ST, Bodeni N, Costa A, Chicco C, Geraghty JG, Luine A, Sacchini V, Veronesi P. Sentinel-node biopsy to avoid axillary dissection in breast cancer with clinicaly negative lymph-nodes. Lancet 1997; 349:1864 –1867PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kinmonth JB. Lymphangiogram in man: method outlining lymphatic trunks and operation. Clin Sci1952; 11: 13 – 20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sherman A, Ter-Pogossian M. Lymph node concentration of radioactive colloid gold following insterstitial injection. Cancer1953; 6: 1238 – 1240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Turner-Warrick R. The demonstration of lymphatic vessels. Lancet1955; 1: 1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hultborn KA, Larsson LG, Ragnhult I. The lymph drainage from the breast to the axillary and parasternal lymph node: studied with the help of Au-198. Acta Radiol1955; 43: 52 – 64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Uren RF, Howman-Giles RB, Thompson JF, Malouf D, Ramsey-Stewart G, Niesche FW, Renwick SB. Mammary lymphoscintigraphy in breast cancer. J Nucl Med1995; 36: 1775 – 1780PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garzom OL, Palcos MC, Radicella R. Technetium-99m labelled colloid. Int J Appl Radiat Isotopes1965; 16: 613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Strand S-E, Persson DRR. Quantitative lymphoscintigraphy. I. Basic concepts for optimal uptake of radiocolloids in the parasternal lymph nodes of rabbits. J Nucl Med 1979; 1038–1046Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bergqvist L, Srand SE, Persson B, Hafstrom L, Jonsson PE. Dosimetry in lymphoscintigraphy of Tc-99m antimony sulfide colloid. J Nucl Med 1982; 23:698 – 705PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaplan WD, Davies MA, Rose CHN. A comparison of two technetium-99m labelled radiopharmaceuticals for lym-phoscintigraphy: concise communication. J Nucl Med1979; 20: 933 – 937PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Paganelli G, Chicco C, Cremonesi M, Prisco G, Calza P, Luini A, Zucali P, Veronesi U. Optimised sentinel node scintigraphy in breast cancer. Q J Nucl Med1998; 42: 49 – 53Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Glass EC, Essner R, Morton DL. Kinetics of three lym-phoscintigraphy agents in patients with cutaneous mela-noma. J Nucl Med 1998; 39:1185 –1190PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tiourina T, Arends B, Huysmans D, Rutten H, Lemaire B, Muller S. Evaluation of surgical gamma probes for radio- guided sentinel node localisation. Eur J Nucl Med1998; 25: 1224 – 1231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Turner RR, Ollila DW, Krasne DL, Giuliano AE. Histo- pathological validation of the sentinel lymph node hypo-thesis for breast carcinoma. Ann Surg 1997; 226:271 – 278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Albertini J J, Lyman GH, Cox C, Yeatman T, Balducci L, Ku N, Shivers S, Berman C, Wells K, Rapaport D, Shons A, Horton J, Greenberg H, Nicosia S, Clark R, Cantor A, Reintgen DS. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel node biopsy in the patient with breast cancer. J Am Med Assoc1996; 276: 1818 – 1822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cox CE, Pendas S, Cox JM, Joseph E, Shons AR, Yeatman T, Ku NN, Lyman GH, Berman C, Haddad F, Reintgen DS. Guidelines for SN biopsy and lymphatic mapping of patients with breast cancer. Ann Surg 1998; 227:645 – 653PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morton DL, Wen D-R, Wong GH, et al. Technical details of intra-operative lymphatic mapping for early stage melanoma.Arch Surg1992; 127: 392 – 399Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Slingluff, CL Jr., Stidham KR, Ricci WM, Stanley WE, Seigler HE Surgical management of regional lymph nodes in patients with melanoma. Experience with 4,682 patients. Ann Surg1994; 219: 120 – 130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reintgen D, Cruse CW, Wells K, Berman C, Fenske N, Glass F, Schroer K, Heller R, Ross M, Lyman G, Cox C, Rapaport D, Seigler HF, Balch C. The orderly progression of melanoma nodal metastases. Ann Surg1994; 220: 759 – 767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Albertini JJ, Cruse CW, Rapaport D, Wells K, Ross M, DeConti R, Berman CG, Jared K, Messina J, Lyman G, Glass F, Fenske N, Reintgen DS. Intraoperative radiolym- phoscintigraphy improves sentinel lymph node identification for patients with melanoma. Ann Surg1996; 223: 217 – 224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leong SPL, Steinmetz I, Habib FA, McMillan A, Gans JZ, Allen RE Jr, Morita E, El-Kadi M, Epstein HD, Kashani- Sabet M, Sagebiel RW. Optimal selective sentinel lymph node dissection in primary malignant melanoma. Arch Surg1998; 132: 666 – 673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Joseph E, Brobeil A, Glass F, Glass J, Messina J, DeConti R, Cruse CW, Rapaport DP, Berman C, Fenske N, Reintgen DS. Results of complete lymph node dissection in 83 melanoma patients with positive SLN. Ann Surg Oncol1998; 5: 119 – 125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cascinelli N, Morabito A, Santinami M, MacKie RM, Belli F. Immediate or delayed dissection of regional nodes in patients with melanoma of the trunk: a randomised trial. WHO Melanoma Programme.Lancet1998; 351: 793 – 796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tortora GJ, Reynold S, Grabowski S. Principles of anatomy and physiology, 8th edn. Addison Wesley Longman, 1996Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hayes DF. Atlas of breast cancer. Mosby, 1993Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammad R. S. Keshtgar
    • 1
  • Wendy A. Waddington
    • 1
  • Sunil R. Lakhani
    • 2
  • Peter J. Ell
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Nuclear MedicineRoyal Free and University College Medical School University College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of HistopathologyRoyal Free and University College Medical School University College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations