Improved detection of sentinel lymph node metastases allows reliable intraoperative identification of patients with extended axillary lymph node involvement in early breast cancer.


Journal

Clinical & experimental metastasis
ISSN: 1573-7276
Titre abrégé: Clin Exp Metastasis
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8409970

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 2021
Historique:
received: 19 04 2020
accepted: 15 11 2020
pubmed: 30 11 2020
medline: 29 6 2021
entrez: 29 11 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

An improved procedure that allows accurate detection of negative sentinel lymph node (SLN) and of SLN macrometastases during surgery would be highly desirable in order to protect patients from further surgery and to avoid unnecessary costs. We evaluated the accuracy of an intraoperative procedure that combines touch imprint cytology (TIC) and subsequent frozen section (FS) analysis. 2276 SLNs from 1072 patients with clinical node-negative early breast cancer were evaluated during surgery using TIC. Only cytologically-positive SLN were subsequently analysed with a single FS, preserving cytologically-negative SLN for the final postoperative histological diagnosis. Sensitivity, specificity and the accuracy of this approach were analysed by comparing the results from intra- and postoperative SLN and axillary node evaluation. This intraoperative method displayed 100% specificity for SLN metastases and was significantly more sensitive for prognostically relevant macrometastases (85%) than for micrometastases (10%). Sensitivity was highest for patients with two or more positive LNs (96%) than for those with only one (72%). 98% of the patients with final pN2a-pN3a were already identified during surgery. Patients who received primary axillary lymph node dissection had significantly more frequent metastases in further LNs (44.6%). Sensitivity was highest for patients with luminal-B, HER2+ and triple negative breast cancer and for any subtype if Ki-67 > 40%. TIC and subsequent FS of cytologically-positive SLNs is highly reliable for detection of SLN macrometastases, and allows accurate identification of patients with a high risk of extended axillary involvement during surgery, as well as accurate histological diagnosis of negative SLN.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
An improved procedure that allows accurate detection of negative sentinel lymph node (SLN) and of SLN macrometastases during surgery would be highly desirable in order to protect patients from further surgery and to avoid unnecessary costs. We evaluated the accuracy of an intraoperative procedure that combines touch imprint cytology (TIC) and subsequent frozen section (FS) analysis. 2276 SLNs from 1072 patients with clinical node-negative early breast cancer were evaluated during surgery using TIC. Only cytologically-positive SLN were subsequently analysed with a single FS, preserving cytologically-negative SLN for the final postoperative histological diagnosis. Sensitivity, specificity and the accuracy of this approach were analysed by comparing the results from intra- and postoperative SLN and axillary node evaluation. This intraoperative method displayed 100% specificity for SLN metastases and was significantly more sensitive for prognostically relevant macrometastases (85%) than for micrometastases (10%). Sensitivity was highest for patients with two or more positive LNs (96%) than for those with only one (72%). 98% of the patients with final pN2a-pN3a were already identified during surgery. Patients who received primary axillary lymph node dissection had significantly more frequent metastases in further LNs (44.6%). Sensitivity was highest for patients with luminal-B, HER2+ and triple negative breast cancer and for any subtype if Ki-67 > 40%. TIC and subsequent FS of cytologically-positive SLNs is highly reliable for detection of SLN macrometastases, and allows accurate identification of patients with a high risk of extended axillary involvement during surgery, as well as accurate histological diagnosis of negative SLN.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33249518
doi: 10.1007/s10585-020-10065-9
pii: 10.1007/s10585-020-10065-9
pmc: PMC7882580
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

61-72

Références

Ann Surg. 2016 Sep;264(3):413-20
pubmed: 27513155
Mod Pathol. 2010 May;23 Suppl 2:S26-32
pubmed: 20436499
J Clin Oncol. 2014 May 1;32(13):1365-83
pubmed: 24663048
Ann Surg Oncol. 2008 May;15(5):1282-96
pubmed: 18330650
Breast Care (Basel). 2013 May;8(2):102-9
pubmed: 24000280
Breast Care (Basel). 2011;6(2):136-141
pubmed: 21633630
Histopathology. 2008 Apr;52(5):597-604
pubmed: 18370956
Histopathology. 1991 Nov;19(5):403-10
pubmed: 1757079
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Feb 10;35(5):561-564
pubmed: 27937089
Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Mar;20(3):836-41
pubmed: 23010735
Acta Cytol. 2003 Nov-Dec;47(6):1028-32
pubmed: 14674073
Virchows Arch. 2012 Jan;460(1):69-76
pubmed: 22116209
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000 Jul;124(7):966-78
pubmed: 10888772
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Feb 10;28(5):731-7
pubmed: 20038733
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014 Nov;148(2):355-61
pubmed: 25318925
Ann Oncol. 2015 Aug;26(8):1533-46
pubmed: 25939896
Anticancer Res. 2012 Aug;32(8):3523-6
pubmed: 22843940
Breast Care (Basel). 2013 Jun;8(3):221-9
pubmed: 24415975
JAMA. 2011 Feb 9;305(6):569-75
pubmed: 21304082
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jan 8;372(2):134-41
pubmed: 25564897
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Nov;15(12):1303-10
pubmed: 25439688
Histopathology. 1999 Jul;35(1):14-8
pubmed: 10383709
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jul 13;377(2):122-131
pubmed: 28581356
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Oct 20;23(30):7703-20
pubmed: 16157938
Ann Oncol. 2017 Aug 1;28(8):1700-1712
pubmed: 28838210
Cancer. 2006 Jan 1;106(1):4-16
pubmed: 16329134
Histopathology. 2016 Jan;68(1):152-67
pubmed: 26768036
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jul 20;26(21):3530-5
pubmed: 18640934
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016 Aug;140(8):791-8
pubmed: 27472237
Cancer. 2005 Feb 1;103(3):451-61
pubmed: 15611971
J Clin Pathol. 2004 May;57(5):467-71
pubmed: 15113852
Mod Pathol. 1999 Aug;12(8):781-5
pubmed: 10463480
Cancer. 2006 Nov 15;107(10):2328-36
pubmed: 17039501

Auteurs

Cristina L Cotarelo (CL)

Institute of Pathology, Heinrich Heine University and University Hospital of Duesseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, D-40225, Düsseldorf, Germany. Cristina.Cotarelo@med.uni-duesseldorf.de.

Annemarie Zschöck-Manus (A)

Institute of Pathology, University Medical Center of Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.

Marcus Schmidt (M)

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Medical Center of Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.

Arno Schad (A)

Institute of Pathology, University Medical Center of Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.

Christoph Brochhausen (C)

Institute of Pathology, University Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.

Charles James Kirkpatrick (CJ)

Institute of Pathology, University Medical Center of Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.

Sonja Thaler (S)

European Centre for Angioscience (ECAS), Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH