Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 99, Issue 2, pp 203–208 | Cite as

Factors affecting failed localisation and false-negative rates of sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer – results of the ALMANAC validation phase

  • Amit Goyal
  • Robert G Newcombe
  • Alok Chhabra
  • Robert E Mansel
  • on behalf of the ALMANAC Trialists Group
Clinical study

Summary

Background

Despite the widespread application of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for early stage breast cancer, there is a wide variation in reported test performance characteristics. A major aim of this prospective multicentre validation study was to quantify detection and false-negative rates of SLNB and evaluate factors influencing them.

Methods

Eight-hundred and fourty-two patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer underwent SLNB according to a standardised protocol that used a combination of radiopharmaceutical 99mTc-albumin colloid and Patent Blue V dye. SLNB was followed by standard axillary treatment at the same operation in all patients.

Results

Sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) were identified in 803 (96.1%) of 836 evaluable cases. The median number of SLNs removed per patient was 2 (range 1–9). There were 19 false negatives, resulting in a sensitivity of 263/282 (93.3%) and accuracy 782/803 (97.6%). SLNs were successfully identified by blue dye in 698 (85.6%), by isotope in 698 (85.6%), and by the combination of blue dye and isotope in 782 (96.0%) of 815 patients. Among 276 node positive patients, one or more positive SLNs were identified by blue dye in 251 (90.9%), by isotope in 246 (89.1%) and by the combination of blue dye and gamma probe in 258 (93.5%). Obesity, tumor location other than upper outer quadrant and non-visualisation of SLNs on the pre-operative lymphoscintiscan were significantly associated with failed localisation (p<0.001, p=0.008, p<0.001, respectively). The false-negative rate in patients with grade 3 tumors was 9.6%, compared with 4.7% in those with grade 2 tumors (p=0.022). The false-negative rate in patients who had one SLN harvested was 10.1%, compared with 1.1% in those who had multiple SLNs (three or more) removed (p=0.010).

Conclusion

SLNB can accurately determine whether axillary metastases are present in patients with early stage breast cancer with clinically negative axillary nodes. Both success and accuracy of SLNB are optimised by the combined use of blue dye and isotope. SLNB success decreases with increasing body mass, tumor location other than the upper outer quadrant and non-visualisation of hot nodes on the pre-operative lymphoscintiscan. This study demonstrates reduction in the predictive value of a negative SLNB in grade 3 tumors.

Keywords

blue dye breast cancer lymphatic mapping radioisotope sentinel lymph node biopsy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all patients in the ALMANAC study; research fellows and other study investigators at each centre. The validation phase of the ALMANAC trial was funded by the Medical Research Council, UK. Details of the trialists’ group have been published previously [16].

References

  1. 1.
    Mansel RE, Goyal A, 2004; European studies on breast lymphatic mapping Semin Oncol 31: 304–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mansel RE, Goyal A, Fallowfield L, Newcombe RG, 2004; Sentinel node biopsy versus standard axillary treatment: results of the randomized multicenter UKALMANAC trial Breast Cancer Res Treat 88: S13Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Veronesi U et al.: 2003; A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer N Engl J Med 349: 546–553PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergkvist L et al.: 2001; Multicentre study of detection and false-negative rates in sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer Br J Surg 88: 1644–1648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kuehn T et al.: 2004; Sentinel-node biopsy for axillary staging in breast cancer: results from a large prospective German multi-institutional trial Eur J Surg Oncol 30: 252–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tafra L et al.: 2001; Multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer using both technetium sulfur colloid and isosulfan blue dye Ann Surg 233: 51–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hill AD et al.: 1999; Lessons learned from 500 cases of lymphatic mapping for breast cancer Ann Surg 229: 528–535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Derossis AM et al.: 2001; A trend analysis of the relative value of blue dye and isotope localization in 2,000 consecutive cases of sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer J Am Coll Surg 193: 473–478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McMasters KM et al.: 2001; Defining the optimal surgeon experience for breast cancer sentinel lymph node biopsy: a model for implementation of new surgical techniques Ann Surg 234: 292–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clarke D, Newcombe RG, Mansel RE, 2004; The learning curve in sentinel node biopsy: the ALMANAC experience Ann Surg Oncol 11: 211S–215SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hung WK et al.: 2005; Randomized clinical trial comparing blue dye with combined dye and isotope for sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer Br J Surg 92: 1494–1497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goyal A, Douglas-Jones AG, Newcombe RG, Mansel RE, 2005; Effect of lymphatic tumor burden on sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer Breast J 11: 188–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cox CE et al.: 2002; Age and body mass index may increase the chance of failure in sentinel lymph node biopsy for women with breast cancer Breast J 8: 88–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Derossis AM, Fey JV, Cody HS III, Borgen PI, 2003; Obesity influences outcome of sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer J Am Coll Surg 197: 896–901PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Birdwell RL et al.: 2001; Breast cancer: variables affecting sentinel lymph node visualization at preoperative lymphoscintigraphy Radiology 220: 47–53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goyal A et al.: 2004; Sentinel lymph node biopsy in male breast cancer patients Eur J Surg Oncol 30: 480–483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amit Goyal
    • 1
  • Robert G Newcombe
    • 2
  • Alok Chhabra
    • 1
  • Robert E Mansel
    • 1
    • 3
  • on behalf of the ALMANAC Trialists Group
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryWales College of Medicine, Cardiff UniversityCardiffUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology, Statistics and Public HealthWales College of Medicine, Cardiff UniversityCardiffUnited Kingdom
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryWales College of Medicine, Cardiff UniversityCardiffUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations