CLINICAL RESEARCH
Treatment outcomes of 213 breast cancer patients after sentinel lymph node biopsy – single center experience
Submission date: 2017-07-03
Final revision date: 2017-08-11
Acceptance date: 2017-09-18
Publication date: 2017-10-20
Arch Med Sci Civil Dis 2017;2(1):130-134
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The article presents the results of the management of patients with breast cancer treated in the Holycross Cancer Centre during the period 2008–2012. In all the patients, invasive breast cancer clinically node negative was diagnosed and multidisciplinary treatment with sentinel node biopsy was applied.
Material and methods: The study included a group of 213 women who had previously undergone surgery, breast-conserving and/or mastectomy. In 206 patients, the sentinel lymph node was identified. Due to metastasis to the sentinel lymph node in 32 patients axillary lymphadenectomy was performed and additionally in 7 patients due to the failure of sentinel lymph node identification. Due to the higher tumor burden 10 patients were subjected to more extensive surgical treatment – mastectomy. After surgical treatment the patients were qualified for adjuvant therapy. The mean time of observation of patients after treatment was 61 months.
Results: Relapse of the disease was noted in 7 patients, 5 patients died (4 patients due to the spread of the disease, 1 due to the second carcinoma – gastric cancer). Recurrence in the axillary region was observed in 1 patient, metastases to the lungs – in 1 patient, metastases to the liver – in 1, metastases to the ovary - in 1, and in 3 patients metastases to the bones. Based on analysis of the Kaplan-Meier estimator of the survival function, it was found that the probability of survival for 5 years without symptoms of the disease was 96.2%, whereas the probability of overall 5-year survival was 96.4%.
Conclusions: The outcome of patients after sentinel lymph node biopsy was excellent. In breast cancer patients sentinel lymph node biopsy is safe and effective.
Material and methods: The study included a group of 213 women who had previously undergone surgery, breast-conserving and/or mastectomy. In 206 patients, the sentinel lymph node was identified. Due to metastasis to the sentinel lymph node in 32 patients axillary lymphadenectomy was performed and additionally in 7 patients due to the failure of sentinel lymph node identification. Due to the higher tumor burden 10 patients were subjected to more extensive surgical treatment – mastectomy. After surgical treatment the patients were qualified for adjuvant therapy. The mean time of observation of patients after treatment was 61 months.
Results: Relapse of the disease was noted in 7 patients, 5 patients died (4 patients due to the spread of the disease, 1 due to the second carcinoma – gastric cancer). Recurrence in the axillary region was observed in 1 patient, metastases to the lungs – in 1 patient, metastases to the liver – in 1, metastases to the ovary - in 1, and in 3 patients metastases to the bones. Based on analysis of the Kaplan-Meier estimator of the survival function, it was found that the probability of survival for 5 years without symptoms of the disease was 96.2%, whereas the probability of overall 5-year survival was 96.4%.
Conclusions: The outcome of patients after sentinel lymph node biopsy was excellent. In breast cancer patients sentinel lymph node biopsy is safe and effective.
REFERENCES (29)
1.
Urban JA, Baker HW. Radical mastectomy in continuity with en bloc resection of the internal mammary lymph-node chain; a new procedure for primary operable cancer of the breast. Cancer 1952; 5: 992-1008.
2.
Halsted WS. I. The results of operations for the cure of cancer of the breast performed at the Johns Hopkins Hospital from June, 1889, to January, 1894. Ann Surg 1894; 20: 497-555.
3.
Guliano AE, Kirgan DM, Guenther JM, Morton DL. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymphadenectomy for breast cancer. Ann Surg 1994; 220: 391-8.
4.
Guliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2011; 305: 569-75.
5.
Galimberti V, Cole BF, Zurrida S, et al. (International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 23-01 investigators). Axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with sentinel-node micrometastases (IBCSG 23-01): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14: 297-305.
6.
Gentilini O, Veronesi U. Abandoning sentinel lymph node biopsy in early breast cancer? A new trial in progress at the European Institute of Oncology of Milan (SOUND: Sentinel node vs Observation after axillary UltraSouND). Breast 2012; 21: 678-81.
7.
Black DM, Hunt KK, Mittendorf EA. Long term outcomes reporting the safety of breast conserving therapy compared to mastectomy: 20-year results of EORTC 10801. Gland Surg 2013; 2: 120-3.
8.
Zumsteg ZS, Morrow M, Arnold B, et al. Breast conserving therapy achieves locoregional outcomes comparable to mastectomy in women with T1-2N0 triple negative breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2013; 20: 3469-76.
9.
Guliano AE, Dale PS, Turner RR, et al. Improved axillary staging of breast cancer with sentinel lymphadenectomy. Ann Surg 1995; 222: 394-9.
10.
Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Viale G, et al. A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer. N Eng J Med 2003; 349: 546-53.
11.
Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, et al. Technical outcomes of sentinel-lymph-node resection and conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer: results from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2007; 8: 881-8.
12.
Mansel RE, Fallowfield L, Kissin M, 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.
13.
Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, et al. Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 927-33.
14.
Van der Ploeg IM, Nieweg OE, Van Rijk MC, Valdes Olmos RA, Kroon BB. Axillary recurrence after tumour- negative sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer patients: a systemic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Eur J Surg Oncol 2008; 34: 1277-84.
15.
Veronesi U, Viale G, Paganelli G, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: ten year results in randomised controlled study. Ann Surg 2010; 251: 595-600.
16.
Krzakowski M. Zalecenia postępowania diagnostyczno-terapeutycznego w nowotworach złośliwych u dorosłych. PUO 2013; 212-63.
17.
Guliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis. JAMA 2011; 305: 569-75.
18.
Ho A, Morrow M. The evolution of the locoregional therapy of breast cncer. Oncologist 2011; 16: 1367-79.
19.
Reimer T, Hartmann S, Stachs A, Gerber B. Local treatment of the axilla in early breast cancer: concepts from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast an Bowel Project B-04 to the Planned Intergroup Sentinel Mamma Trial. Breast Care 2014; 9: 87-95.
20.
Wazir U, Manson A, Mokbel K. Towards optimal management of the axilla in the context of a positive sentinel node biopsy in early breast cancer. World J Clin Oncol 2014; 5: 792-4.
21.
Gatzmeier W, Mann GB. Which sentinel lymph-node (SLN) positive breast cancer patients needs an axillary lymph-node dissection (ALND)-ACOSOG Z 0011 results and beyond. Breast 2013; 22: 211-6.
22.
Hieken TJ, Boughey JC. Axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with sentinel-node micrometastases: commentary to the IBCSG 23-01 Trial Gland Surg 2013; 2: 128-32.
23.
Zanghi G, Di Stefano G, Caponnetto A, et al. Breast Cancer and sentinel lymph node micrometastases: indications for lymphadenectomy and literature review. G Chir 2014; 35: 260-5.
24.
Posther KE, McCall LM, Blumencranz PW, et al. Sentinel node skills verification and surgeon performance: Data from multicenter clinical trial for early-stage breast cancer. Ann Surg 2005; 242: 593-9.
25.
Van Zee KJ, Manasseh DM, Bevilacqua JL, et al. A nomogram predicting the likelihood of additional nodal metastases in breast cancer patients with positive sentinel node biopsy Ann Surg Oncol 2003; 10: 1140-51.
26.
Degnim AC, Reynolds C, Pantavaidya G, et al. Non sentinel node metastasis in breast cancer patients: assessment of an existing and a new predictive nomogram. Am J Surg 2005; 190: 543-50.
27.
Pal A, Provenano E, Duffy SW, Pinder SE, Purushotham AD. A model of predicting non-sentinel metastaic disease when the sentinel lymph node is positive. Br J Surg 2008; 95: 302-9.
28.
Coutant C, Olivier C, Lambaudie E, et al. Comparison of models to predict nonsentinel lymph node status in breast cancer patients with metastatic sentinel lymph nodes: a prospective multi-center study. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 2800-8.
29.
Cserni G, Boross G, Maraz R, et al. Multicentre validation of different predictive tools of non-sentinel lymph node involvement in breast cancer. Surg Oncol 2012; 21: 59-65.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| ISSN: | 2451-0637 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
