Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparative Validation of Primary Surgical Versus Post-neo-adjuvant Chemotherapy Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Stage III Breast Cancers

  • Original Scientific Report
  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for staging N0 primary early breast cancers (EBC). Patients in developing countries mostly present with large (LOBC) or locally advanced cancers (LABC) and are treated with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Accuracy of SLNB in staging stage III N0 and post-NACT N0 patients is uncertain. This prospective validation study on LOBC/LABC patients compared the accuracy of SLNB between primary versus post-NACT surgery.

Materials and methods

Fifty T3/T4, N0 patients undergoing primary surgery (Group I) and 70 LOBC/LABC (index stage) treated with NACT and N0 at the time of surgery (Group II) were inducted. Validation SLNB was performed using low-cost methylene-blue and 99mTc-Antimony colloid. SLN identification (IR) and false-negative (FNR) rates were compared between the groups. Sub-group analysis was done in Group II per index tumor and nodal stage to identify factors predicting SLN IR and FNR in post-NACT patients. SLN IR and FNR in both groups were compared with those in previously published SLN validation study and meta-analysis in EBC.

Results

Using combination of blue-dye and radio-colloid, post-NACT SLN IR and FNR (82.9, 13.5 %) were far inferior to T3/T4 primary surgery group (94, 7.7 %; p values 0.034, 0.041) and in EBC. SLN IR using blue-dye alone was dismally low in post-NACT LABCs. Factors predicting unidentified post-NACT SLN and false-negative SLNB included young age, LVI, skin infiltration, extra-nodal spread or N2a stage, and UOQ tumors.

Conclusions

Accuracy of SLNB in T3, N0 tumors undergoing primary surgery is comparable to that of SLNB for N0 EBC. In post-NACT patients, SLNB IR are lower and FNR are higher. Factors predictive of non-identification and false-negative SLNB include pre-NACT skin involvement (T4b), N2a stage or extra-nodal invasion and LVI, and to a lesser extent, young age and UOQ location of the tumor.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB et al (2007) Technical outcomes of sentinel-lymphnode resection and conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer: results from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase III trial. Lancet Oncol. 8:881–888

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Latosinsky S, Dabbs K, Moffat F (2008) Evidence-based reviews in surgery group. Canadian Association of General Surgeons and American College of Surgeons Evidence-Based Reviews in Surgery. 27. Quality-of-life outcomes with sentinel node biopsy versus standard axillary treatment in patients with operable breast cancer. Randomized multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy versus standard axillary treatment in operable breast cancer: the ALMANAC Trial. Can J Surg 51(6):483–485

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Chung MH, Ye W, Giuliano AE (2001) Role for sentinel lymph node dissection in the management of large (> or = 5 cm) invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 8:688–692

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wong SL, Chao C, Edwards MJ et al. (2002) Accuracy of sentinel lymph node biopsy for patients with T2 and T3 breast cancers. Am Surg. 2001 Jun;67(6):522–6; discussion 527–8. Erratum in: Am Surg 68(5):503

  5. Beumer JD, Gill G, Campbell I et al (2014) Sentinel node biopsy and large (≥3 cm) breast cancer. ANZ J Surg. 84(3):117–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Agarwal G, Gambhir S, Lal P et al (2011) Sentinel lymph node biopsy in large node negative breast cancer: results of a validation study using low-cost blue dye & 99mTc-antimony colloid. Breast J 20(Suppl 1):S60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA, Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology et al (2013) Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer: the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) clinical trial. JAMA 310(14):1455–1461

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Leong SP, Shen ZZ, Liu TJ et al (2010) Is breast cancer the same disease in Asian and Western countries? World J Surg 34(10):2308–2324. doi:10.1007/s00268-010-0683-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Agarwal G, Ramakant P, Forgach ER et al (2009) Breast cancer care in developing countries. World J Surg 33(10):2069–2076. doi:10.1007/s00268-009-0150-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hennessy BT, Hortobagyi GN, Rouzier R et al (2005) Outcome after pathologic complete eradication of cytologically proven breast cancer axillary node metastases following primary chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 23(36):9304–9311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fitzgibbons PL, Page DL, Weaver D et al (2000) Prognostic factors in breast cancer. College of American Pathologists consensus statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med 124:966–978

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lyman GH, Giuliano AE, Somerfield MR et al (2005) American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:7703–7720

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Agarwal G, Gambhir S, Kheruka S et al (2005) Low-cost sentinel node studies in breast cancer with indigenous blue dye & 99mTc-antimony colloid. J Jpn Surg Soc 106:221

    Google Scholar 

  14. Pesek S, Ashikaga T, Krag LE, Krag D (2012) The false-negative rate of sentinel node biopsy in patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg 36(9):2239–2251. doi:10.1007/s00268-012-1623-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Bedrosian I, Reynolds C, Mick R et al (2000) Accuracy of sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with large primary breast tumors. Cancer 88(11):2540–2545

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schüle J, Frisell J, Ingvar C, Bergkvist L (2007) Sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer larger than 3 cm in diameter. Br J Surg 94(8):948–951

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA et al (2015) Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. Factors affecting sentinel lymph node identification rate after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer patients enrolled in ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance). Ann Surg 261(3):547–552

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Mamounas EP, Brown A, Anderson S et al. (2005) Sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol. 23(12):2694–702. Erratum in: J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jul 20;23(21):4808

  19. Takahashi M, Jinno H, Hayashida T et al (2012) Correlation between clinical nodal status and sentinel lymph node biopsy false negative rate after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. World J Surg 36(12):2847–2852. doi:10.1007/s00268-012-1704-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fu JF, Chen HL, Yang J et al (2014) Feasibility and accuracy of sentinel lymph node biopsy in clinically node-positive breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 9(9):e105316

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Keshtgar M, Zaknun JJ, Sabih D et al (2011) Implementing sentinel lymph node biopsy program in developing countries: challenges and opportunities. World J Surg 35(6):1159–1168. doi:10.1007/s00268-011-0956-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Endocrine & Breast Surgery, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGIMS), Raebareli Road, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, 226014, India

    Gaurav Agarwal & Sendhil Rajan

  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGIMS), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

    Sanjay Gambhir & Subhash Kheruka

  3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGIMS), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

    Punita Lal

  4. Department of Pathology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGIMS), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

    Narendra Krishnani

Authors
  1. Gaurav Agarwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sendhil Rajan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sanjay Gambhir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Punita Lal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Narendra Krishnani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Subhash Kheruka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gaurav Agarwal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Agarwal, G., Rajan, S., Gambhir, S. et al. A Comparative Validation of Primary Surgical Versus Post-neo-adjuvant Chemotherapy Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Stage III Breast Cancers. World J Surg 40, 1583–1589 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-015-3222-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-015-3222-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation