Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sentinel-Lymphknoten-Biopsie in der Therapie des Mammakarzinoms

Historischer Überblick und aktueller Stand

Sentinel-lymph-node-biopsy in the therapy of breast cancer: Historic overview and recent recommendations

  • Zum Thema
  • Published:
Der Gynäkologe Aims and scope

Zusammenfassung

Der Nodalstatus ist einer der wichtigsten Prognosefaktoren beim primären Mammakarzinom. Die systematische Axilladissektion ist allerdings mit einer nicht unerheblichen Morbidität belastet. Für ein ausgewähltes Kollektiv bietet die Sentinel-Lymphknoten-Biopsie eine sichere, aber deutlich weniger invasive Alternative. Hierzu liegen inzwischen auch Empfehlungen der Fachgesellschaften vor. Bei entsprechend sorgfältiger Selektion der in Frage kommenden Patientinnen, der Durchführung einer geeigneten Qualitätssicherung sowie standardisierter interdisziplinärer Zusammenarbeit der in der Methode ausgebildeten Operateure mit der Nuklearmedizin und der Pathologie kann die Sentinel-Lymphknoten-Biopsie heute auch außerhalb von Studien als Alternative zur Entfernung der Lymphknoten aus Level I und II der Axilla angeboten werden.

Abstract

Axillary nodal status is one of the most important prognostic factors in primary breast cancer. The systematic axillary dissection produces a significant postoperative morbidity. For a selected group of patients the sentinel-lymph-node-biopsy is a safe and less invasive alternative. For Germany a consensus paper on this issue has recently been published. With a careful selection of patients, the use of sufficient tools for quality management and a standardized interdisciplinary cooperation of surgeons experienced in the method with colleagues from the nuclear medicine and pathology the sentinel-lymph-node-biopsy can be performed as an alternative to the complete axillary dissection level I and II in the clinical routine.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Literatur

  1. Cabanas R (1977) An approach for the treatment of penile carcinoma. Cancer 39: 456–466

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Morton DL, Wen DR, Wong JH (1992) Technical details of intraoperative lymphatic mapping for early stage melanoma. Arch Surg 127: 392–399

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Krag DN, Weaver DL, Alex JC (1993) Surgical resection and radiolocalization of the sentinel lymph node in breast cancer using a gamma probe. Surg Oncol 2: 335–340

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Giuliano AE, Kirgan DM, Guenther JM (1994) Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymphadenectomy for breast cancer. Ann Surg 220: 391–401

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Albertini JJ, Lyman GH, Cox C (1996) Lymphatic mapping and sentinel node biopsy in the patient with breast cancer. JAMA 276: 1818–1822

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cody HS, Borgen PI (1999) State-of-the-art approaches to sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer: study design, patient selection, technique and quality control at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Surg Oncol 8: 85–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Turner RR, Ollila DW, Krasne DL, Giuliano AE (1997) Histologic validation of the sentinel lymph node hypothesis for breast carcinoma. Ann Surg 226: 271–278

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Blanchard DK, Donohue JH, Reynolds C, Grant CS (2003) Relapse and morbidity in patients undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy alone or with axillary dissection for breast cancer. Arch Surg 138: 482–487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Roumen RM, Kuijt GP, Liem IH, van Beek MW (2001) Treatment of 100 patients with sentinel node-negative breast cancer without further axillary dissection. Br J Surg 88: 1639–1643

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Reitsamer R, Peintinger F, Prokop E, Menzel C, Cimpoca W, Rettenbacher L (2003) Sentinel lymph node biopsy alone without axillary lymph node dissection—follow up of sentinel lymph node negative breast cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 29: 221–223

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Giuliano AE, Haigh PI, Brennan MB et al. (2000) Prospective observational study of sentinel lymphadenectomy without further axillary dissection in patients with sentinel node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 18: 2553–2559

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kühn T, Santjohanser C, Koretz K, Bohm W, Kreienberg R (2000) Axilloscopy and endoscopic sentinel node detection in breast cancer patients. Surg Endosc 14: 573–577

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fisher B, Bauer M, Wickerham L, Redmond CK, Fisher ER (1983) Relation of number of positive nodes to the prognosis of patients with primary breast cancer. An NSABP update. Cancer 52: 1551–1557

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Moliterni A (1995) Adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and flourouracil in node-positive breast cancer: the results of 20 years follow-up. N Engl J Med 332: 901–906

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fisher ER, Anderson S, Redmond C, Fisher B (1993) Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project Protocol B-06: 10 year pathological and clinical prognostic discrimininants. Cancer 71: 2507–2514

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Carter CL, Allen C, Henderson DE (1989) Relation of tumour size, lymph node status and survival in 24.740 breast cancer cases. Cancer 73: 505–508

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fisher B, Slack NH, Ausman RK, Bross IDJ (1969) Location of breast carcinoma and prognosis. Surg Gynec Obstet 129: 7057–7061

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fisher B, Wolmark N, Bauer M, Redmond C, Gebhardt M (1981) The accuracy of clinical nodal staging and of limited axillary dissection as a determinant of histological nodal staging in carcinoma of the breast. Surg Gynec Obstet 152: 765–772

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. De Boer R, Hillen HFP, Roumen RMH, Rutten HJT, van der Sangen MJC, Voogd AC (2001) Detection, treatment and outcome of axillary recurrence after axillary clearance for invasive breast cancer. Br J Surg 88: 118–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Recht A, Pierce SM, Abner A (1991) Regional node failure after conservative surgery and radiotherapy for early-stage breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 9: 988–996

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Levine MN, Bramwell VH, Pritchard KI et al. (1998) Randomized trial of intensive cyclophosphamide, epirubicin and fluorouracil chemotherapy compared with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil in premenopausal women with node-positive breast cancer. National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trialists Group. J Clin Oncol 16: 2651–2658

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Steel RJC, Forrest APM, Gibson T (1985) The efficiacy of lower axillary sampling in obtaining lymph node status in breast cancer: a controlled randomised trial. Br J Surg 72: 368–369

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kissin MW, Thompson PH, Price AB (1982) The inadequacy of axillary sampling in breast cancer. Lancet 1: 1210–1212

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Petrek JA, Pressman PI, Smith RA (2000) Lympedema: current issues. Cancer J Clin 50: 292–307

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Burak WE, Hollenbeck ST, Zervos EE, Hock KL, Kemp LC, Young DC (2002) Sentinel lymph node biopsy results in less postoperative morbidity compared with axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer. Am J Surg 183: 23–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sener SF, Winchester DJ, Martz CH et al. (2001) Lympedema after sentinel lymphadenectomy for breast carcinoma. Cancer 92: 748–752

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Carpenter R (2001) Sentinel node biopsy should be introduced into routine practice before results of randomized trials are available. Breast 10: 281–284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Orr RK, Hoen JL, Nananda F (1997) The learning curve for sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer. Practical consideration. Arch Surg 134: 764–767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kühn T, Bembenek A, Büchels H et al. (2003) Sentinel-Node-Biopsie beim Mammakarzinom. Interdisziplinär abgestimmter Konsensus der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Senologie für eine qualitätsgesicherte Anwendung in der klinischen Routine. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 63: 835–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ostertag H, Eidtmann H, Jonat W (2000) New procedures in the axilla in patients with breast cancer. Gynäkologe 33: 246–254

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt:

Der korrespondierende Autor versichert, dass keine Verbindungen mit einer Firma, deren Produkt in dem Artikel genannt ist, oder einer Firma, die ein Konkurrenzprodukt vertreibt, bestehen.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck

    H. C. Kolberg, M. Friedrich & K. Diedrich

  2. Klinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck

    H. C. Kolberg

Authors
  1. H. C. Kolberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Friedrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. Diedrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. C. Kolberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kolberg, H.C., Friedrich, M. & Diedrich, K. Sentinel-Lymphknoten-Biopsie in der Therapie des Mammakarzinoms. Gynäkologe 37, 654–661 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00129-004-1560-5

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00129-004-1560-5

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation