Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer

  • Chapter
Metastasis of Breast Cancer

Part of the book series: Cancer Metastasis – Biology and Treatment ((CMBT,volume 11))

  • 1196 Accesses

Abstract

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the current standard of care for nodal staging in early-stage breast cancer patients who are clinically nodenegative. Data from three randomised controlled trials conclusively demonstrates that SLNB is associated with less arm morbidity and better quality of life than axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). Large observational studies have shown that SLNB is associated with low local recurrence rate and similar survival to ALND. Appropriately identified patients with negative results of SLNB need not undergo completion ALND. Micrometastasis and isolated tumour cells detected by pathologic examination of the SLN with use of immunohistochemical staining or RT-PCR are currently of unknown clinical significance and they are not a required part of SLN evaluation for breast cancer at this time.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Warmuth MA et al. Complications of axillary lymph node dissection for carcinoma of the breast: a report based on a patient survey. Cancer 1998; 83: 1362-1368.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Velanovich V, Szymanski W. Quality of life of breast cancer patients with lymphedema. Am J Surg 1999; 177: 184-187.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Roses DF, Brooks AD, Harris MN, Shapiro RL, Mitnick J. Complications of level I and II axillary dissection in the treatment of carcinoma of the breast. Ann Surg 1999; 230: 194-201.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hack TF, Cohen L, Katz J, Robson LS, Goss P. Physical and psychological morbidity after axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 143-149.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Maunsell E, Brisson J, Deschenes L. Arm problems and psychological distress after surgery for breast cancer. Can J Surg 1993; 36: 315-320.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cabanas RM. An approach for the treatment of penile carcinoma. Cancer 1977; 39: 456-466.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Morton DL et al. Technical details of intraoperative lymphatic mapping for early stage melanoma. Arch Surg 1992; 127: 392-399.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Alex JC, Krag DN. Gamma-probe guided localization of lymph nodes. Surg Oncol 1993; 2: 137-143.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Krag D et al. The sentinel node in breast cancer-a multicenter validation study. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 941-946.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Giuliano AE, Kirgan DM, Guenther JM, Morton DL. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymphadenectomy for breast cancer. Ann Surg 1994; 220: 391-398.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Goyal A, Newcombe RG, Chhabra A, Mansel RE. Factors affecting failed localisation and false-negative rates of sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer - results of the ALMANAC validation phase. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006; 99: 203-208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. McMasters KM et al. Defining the optimal surgeon experience for breast cancer sentinel lymph node biopsy: a model for implementation of new surgical techniques. Ann Surg 2001; 234: 292-299.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Morrow M et al. Learning sentinel node biopsy: results of a prospective randomized trial of two techniques. Surgery 1999; 126: 714-720.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Simmons RM. Review of sentinel lymph node credentialing: how many cases are enough? J Am Coll Surg 2001; 193: 206-209.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Tafra L, McMasters KM, Whitworth P, Edwards MJ. Credentialing issues with sentinel lymph node staging for breast cancer. Am J Surg 2000; 180: 268-273.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Clarke D, Newcombe RG, Mansel RE. The learning curve in sentinel node biopsy: the ALMANAC experience. Ann Surg Oncol 2004; 11: 211-215.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hill AD et al. Lessons learned from 500 cases of lymphatic mapping for breast cancer. Ann Surg 1999; 229: 528-535.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Derossis AM et al. 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 2001; 193: 473-478.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hung WK et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing blue dye with combined dye and isotope for sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer. Br J Surg 2005; 92: 1494-1497.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. McMasters KM et al. Dermal injection of radioactive colloid is superior to peritumoral injection for breast cancer sentinel lymph node biopsy: results of a multiinstitutional study. Ann Surg 2001; 233: 676-687.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kern KA. Lymphoscintigraphic anatomy of sentinel lymphatic channels after subareolar injection of Technetium 99m sulfur colloid. J Am Coll Surg 2001; 193: 601-608.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Birdwell RL et al. Breast cancer: variables affecting sentinel lymph node visuali- zation at preoperative lymphoscintigraphy. Radiology 2001; 220: 47-53.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Goyal A et al. Role of routine preoperative lymphoscintigraphy in sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2005; 41: 238-243.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Burak WE, Jr. et al. Routine preoperative lymphoscintigraphy is not necessary prior to sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer. Am J Surg 1999; 177: 445-449.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. McMasters KM et al. Preoperative lymphoscintigraphy for breast cancer does not improve the ability to identify axillary sentinel lymph nodes. Ann Surg 2000; 231: 724-731.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Borgstein PJ et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: guidelines and pitfalls of lymphoscintigraphy and gamma probe detection. J Am Coll Surg 1998; 186: 275-283.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Goyal A, Douglas-Jones AG, Newcombe RG, Mansel RE. Effect of lymphatic tumor burden on sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer. Breast J 2005; 11: 188-194.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Giuliano AE, Jones RC, Brennan M, Statman R. Sentinel lymphadenectomy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 2345-2350.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Goyal A, Newcombe RG, Mansel RE. Clinical relevance of multiple sentinel nodes in patients with breast cancer. Br J Surg 2005; 92: 438-442.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. McCarter MD, Yeung H, Fey J, Borgen PI, Cody HS, III. The breast cancer patient with multiple sentinel nodes: when to stop? J Am Coll Surg 2001; 192: 692-697.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Julian TB et al. Preliminary technical results of NSARP B-32, a randomized phase III clinical trial to compare sentinel node resection to conventional axillary dissection in clinically node-negative breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2004; 88: S11-S12.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Veronesi U et al. A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 546-553.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Purushotham AD et al. Morbidity after sentinel lymph node biopsy in primary breast cancer: results from a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 4312-4321.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mansel RE et al. Randomized multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy versus standard axillary treatment in operable breast cancer: the ALMANAC Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 599-609.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Naik AM et al. The risk of axillary relapse after sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer is comparable with that of axillary lymph node dissection: a followup study of 4008 procedures. Ann Surg 2004; 240: 462-468.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Veronesi U et al. Sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer: early results in 953 patients with negative sentinel node biopsy and no axillary dissection. Eur J Cancer 2005; 41: 231-237.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Montgomery LL et al. Isosulfan blue dye reactions during sentinel lymph node mapping for breast cancer. Anesth Analg 2002; 95: 385-388.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Waddington WA et al. Radiation safety of the sentinel lymph node technique in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 2000; 27: 377-391.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Klimberg VS et al. Subareolar versus peritumoral injection for location of the sentinel lymph node. Ann Surg 1999; 229: 860-864.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Borgstein PJ, Meijer S, Pijpers R. Intradermal blue dye to identify sentinel lymph- node in breast cancer. Lancet 1997; 349: 1668-1669.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Linehan DC et al. Intradermal radiocolloid and intraparenchymal blue dye injection optimize sentinel node identification in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 1999; 6: 450-454.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Goyal A et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with multifocal breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2004; 30: 475-479.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Kumar R et al. Retrospective analysis of sentinel node localization in multifocal, multicentric, palpable, or nonpalpable breast cancer. J Nucl Med 2003; 44: 7-10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Schrenk P, Wayand W. Sentinel-node biopsy in axillary lymph-node staging for patients with multicentric breast cancer. Lancet 2001; 357: 122.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Hoorntje LE et al. The finding of invasive cancer after a preoperative diagnosis of ductal carcinoma-in-situ: causes of ductal carcinoma-in-situ underestimates with stereotactic 14-gauge needle biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 2003; 10: 748-753.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Mittendorf EA, Arciero CA, Gutchell V, Hooke J, Shriver CD. Core biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: an indication for sentinel lymph node biopsy. Curr Surg 2005; 62: 253-257.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Renshaw AA. Predicting invasion in the excision specimen from breast core needle biopsy specimens with only ductal carcinoma in situ. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2002; 126: 39-41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Wilkie C, White L, Dupont E, Cantor A, Cox CE. An update of sentinel lymph node mapping in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. Am J Surg 2005; 190: 563-566.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Yen TW et al. Predictors of invasive breast cancer in patients with an initial diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: a guide to selective use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in management of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Am Coll Surg 2005; 200: 516-526.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Goyal A et al. Is there a role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ?: analysis of 587 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006; 98: 311-314.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Albo D et al. Evaluation of lymph node status in male breast cancer patients: a role for sentinel lymph node biopsy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2003; 77: 9-14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Hill AD, Borgen PI, Cody HS, III. Sentinel node biopsy in male breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 1999; 25: 442-443.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Goyal A et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in male breast cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 2004; 30: 480-483.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Fernandez A et al. Gamma probe sentinel node localization and biopsy in breast cancer patients treated with a neoadjuvant chemotherapy scheme. Nucl Med Commun 2001; 22: 361-366.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Balch GC, Mithani SK, Richards KR, Beauchamp RD, Kelley MC. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymphadenectomy after preoperative therapy for stage II and III breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2003; 10: 616-621.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Haid A et al. Is sentinel lymph node biopsy reliable and indicated after preopera- tive chemotherapy in patients with breast carcinoma? Cancer 2001; 92: 1080-1084.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Tafra L, Verbanac KM, Lannin DR. Preoperative chemotherapy and sentinel lymphadenectomy for breast cancer. Am J Surg 2001; 182: 312-315.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Nason KS et al. Increased false negative sentinel node biopsy rates after preoperative chemotherapy for invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer 2000; 89: 2187-2194.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Miller AR et al. Analysis of sentinel lymph node mapping with immediate pathologic review in patients receiving preoperative chemotherapy for breast carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2002; 9: 243-247.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Sabel MS et al. Sentinel node biopsy prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Am J Surg 2003; 186: 102-105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Goyal A, Newcombe RG, Mansel RE. Clinical relevance of internal mammary node drainage in sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2005; 23: 8S.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Klauber-DeMore N, Bevilacqua JL, Van Zee KJ, Borgen P, Cody HS, III. Compre- hensive review of the management of internal mammary lymph node metastases in breast cancer. J Am Coll Surg 2001; 193: 547-555.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Mansel RE, Goyal A, Newcombe RG. Internal mammary node drainage and its role in sentinel lymph node biopsy: the initial ALMANAC experience. Clin Breast Cancer 2004; 5: 279-284.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Veronesi U, Marubini E, Mariani L, Valagussa P, Zucali R. The dissection of internal mammary nodes does not improve the survival of breast cancer patients. 30-year results of a randomised trial. Eur J Cancer 1999; 35: 1320-1325.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Keleher A, Wendt R, III, Delpassand E, Stachowiak AM, Kuerer HM. The safety of lymphatic mapping in pregnant breast cancer patients using Tc-99m sulfur colloid. Breast J 2004; 10: 492-495.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Gentilini O et al. Safety of sentinel node biopsy in pregnant patients with breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2004; 15: 1348-1351.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Mondi MM, Cuenca RE, Ollila DW, Iv JH, Levine EA. Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy During Pregnancy: Initial Clinical Experience. Ann Surg Oncol 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Cox CE et al. Age and body mass index may increase the chance of failure in sentinel lymph node biopsy for women with breast cancer. Breast J 2002; 8: 88-91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Derossis AM, Fey JV, Cody HS, III, Borgen PI. Obesity influences outcome of sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. J Am Coll Surg 2003; 197: 896-901.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Goyal A, Douglas-Jones A, Newcombe RG, Mansel RE. Predictors of non- sentinel lymph node metastasis in breast cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 2004; 40: 1731-1737.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Department of Surgery, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Heath Park, CF14 4XN, Cardiff, UK

    Amit Goyal MB, MD

  2. University Department of Surgery, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Heath Park, CF14 4XN, Cardiff, UK

    Robert E. Mansel MS, FRCS, CBE

Authors
  1. Amit Goyal MB, MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert E. Mansel MS, FRCS, CBE
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Heath Park, CF14 4XN, Cardiff, UK

    Robert E. Mansel MS, FRCS, CBE

  2. Michell Cancer Institute, University of South Alabama, 307 N. University Blvd., 2015, 36688, AL, USA

    Oystein Fodstad PhD

  3. Metastasis and Angiogenesis Research Group, Cardiff University School of Medicine, CF14 4XN, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK

    Wen G. Jiang MB, BCh, MD

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Goyal, A., Mansel, R.E. (2007). Sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. In: Mansel, R.E., Fodstad, O., Jiang, W.G. (eds) Metastasis of Breast Cancer. Cancer Metastasis – Biology and Treatment, vol 11. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5867-7_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation