Display options
Share it on

World J Surg Oncol. 2006 Nov 20;4:79. doi: 10.1186/1477-7819-4-79.

Multifocality and multicentricity are not contraindications for sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer surgery.

World journal of surgical oncology

Alberta Ferrari, Paolo Dionigi, Francesca Rovera, Luigi Boni, Giorgio Limonta, Silvana Garancini, Diego De Palma, Gianlorenzo Dionigi, Cristiana Vanoli, Mario Diurni, Giulio Carcano, Renzo Dionigi

Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy. [email protected]

PMID: 17116258 PMCID: PMC1665453 DOI: 10.1186/1477-7819-4-79

Abstract

BACKGROUND: After the availability of the results of validation studies, the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has replaced routine axillary dissection (AD) as the new standard of care in early unifocal breast cancers. Multifocal (MF) and multicentric (MC) tumors have been considered a contraindication for this technique due to the possible incidence of a higher false-negative rate. This prospective study evaluates the lymphatic drainage from different tumoral foci of the breast and assesses the accuracy of SLNB in MF-MC breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with preoperative diagnosis of MF or MC infiltrating and clinically node-negative (cN0) breast carcinoma were enrolled in this study. Two consecutive groups of patients underwent SLN mapping using a different site of injection of the radioisotope tracer: a) "2ID" Group received two intradermal (i.d.) injections over the site of the two dominant neoplastic nodules. A lymphoscintigraphic study was performed after each injection to evaluate the route of lymphatic spreading from different sites of the breast. b) "A" Group had periareolar (A) injection followed by a conventional lymphoscintigraphy. At surgery, both radioguided SLNB (with frozen section exam) and subsequent AD were planned, regardless the SLN status.

RESULTS: A total 31 patients with MF (n = 12) or MC (n = 19) invasive, cN0 cancer of the breast fulfil the selection criteria. In 2 i.d. Group (n = 15) the lymphoscintigraphic study showed the lymphatic pathways from two different sites of the breast which converged into one major lymphatic trunk affering to the same SLN(s) in 14 (93.3%) cases. In one (6.7%) MC cancer two different pathways were found, each of them affering to a different SLN. In A Group (n = 16) lymphoscintigraphy showed one (93.7%) or two (6.3%) lymphatic channels, each connecting areola with one or more SLN(s). Identification rate of SLN was 100% in both Groups. Accuracy of frozen section exam on SLN was 96.8% (1 case of micrometastasis was missed). SLN was positive in 13 (41.9%) of 31 patients, including 4 cases (30.7%) of micrometastasis. In 7 of 13 (53.8%) patients the SLN was the only site of axillary metastasis. SLNB accuracy was 96.8% (30 of 31), sensitivity 92.8 (13 of 14), and false-negative rate 7.1% (1 of 14). Since the case of skip metastasis was identified by the surgeon intraoperatively, it would have been no impact in the clinical practice.

CONCLUSION: Our lymphoscintigraphic study shows that axillary SLN represents the whole breast regardless of tumor location within the parenchyma. The high accuracy of SLNB in MF and MC breast cancer demonstrates, according with the results of other series published in the literature, that both MF and MC tumors do not represent a contraindication for SLNB anymore.

References

  1. Ann Surg. 1999 Jun;229(6):860-4; discussion 864-5 - PubMed
  2. Bull Cancer. 1999 Nov;86(11):939-45 - PubMed
  3. Ann Surg. 2000 Jul;232(1):81-9 - PubMed
  4. Ann Surg Oncol. 2000 Sep;7(8):581-7 - PubMed
  5. Am J Surg. 2000 Dec;180(6):434-7; discussion 437-8 - PubMed
  6. Lancet. 2001 Jan 13;357(9250):122 - PubMed
  7. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001 Jan-Feb;8(1):20-4 - PubMed
  8. J Am Coll Surg. 2001 Mar;192(3):399-409 - PubMed
  9. Ann Surg. 2001 May;233(5):676-87 - PubMed
  10. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001 Oct;8(9):688-92 - PubMed
  11. J Am Coll Surg. 2001 Dec;193(6):601-8 - PubMed
  12. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002 Jan-Feb;9(1):77-81 - PubMed
  13. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002 Mar;9(2):169-76 - PubMed
  14. Cancer. 2002 May 15;94(10):2542-51 - PubMed
  15. Breast J. 2002 Nov-Dec;8(6):356-61 - PubMed
  16. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2002 Dec;76(3):237-44 - PubMed
  17. J Nucl Med. 2003 Jan;44(1):7-10 - PubMed
  18. Br J Surg. 1959 May;46:574-82 - PubMed
  19. J Am Coll Surg. 2003 Oct;197(4):529-35 - PubMed
  20. Breast. 2003 Dec;12(6):569-82 - PubMed
  21. J Am Coll Surg. 2004 Apr;198(4):674-6 - PubMed
  22. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004 Jun;30(5):475-9 - PubMed
  23. Arch Surg. 2004 Jun;139(6):614-8; discussion 618-20 - PubMed
  24. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Mar 10;23(8):1698-705 - PubMed
  25. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2005 Jun;31(5):479-84 - PubMed
  26. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jul 1;23(19):4312-21 - PubMed
  27. Ann Oncol. 2005 Oct;16(10):1569-83 - PubMed
  28. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Oct 20;23(30):7703-20 - PubMed
  29. Minerva Ginecol. 2005 Jun;57(3):293-303 - PubMed
  30. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009 Jul;7(7):712-47 - PubMed
  31. Surg Oncol. 1993 Dec;2(6):335-9; discussion 340 - PubMed
  32. Cancer. 1977 Oct;40(4):1726-34 - PubMed
  33. Lancet. 1997 Jun 7;349(9066):1668-9 - PubMed
  34. Lancet. 1997 Jun 28;349(9069):1864-7 - PubMed

Publication Types