PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Marieke J Bolster

Publications and source records attributed to Marieke J Bolster.

2 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Risk factors for non-sentinel lymph node metastases in patients with breast cancer. The outcome of a multi-institutional study.

BACKGROUND: In this multi-institutional prospective study, we evaluated whether we could identify risk factors predictive for non-sentinel lymph node (non-SN) metastases in breast cancer patients with a positive sentinel lymph node (SN). METHODS: In this multi-institutional study, 541 eligible breast cancer patients were included prospectively. RESULTS: The occurrence of non-SN metastases was related to the size of the SN metastasis (P = .02), primary tumor size (P = .001), and lymphovascular invasion (P = .07). The adjusted odds ratio was 3.1 for SN micro-metastasis compared with SN isolated tumor cells, 4.0 for SN macro-metastasis versus SN isolated tumor cells, 3.1 for tumor size (>3.0 cm compared with </=3.0 cm), and 2.0 for lymphovascular invasion (yes versus no). There were no positive non-SNs when the primary tumor size was </=1.0 cm (n = 24) [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0%-14.0%]. The proportion of positive non-SNs ranged in a prognostic logistic regression model from 9.7% (95% CI 4.0%-23.0%) for patients with SN isolated tumor cells, tumor size of 1.1-3.0 cm, and without vessel invasion, to 72.6% (95% CI 47.0%-89.0%) for patients with SN macro-metastasis, tumor size >3.0 cm, and with vessel invasion. CONCLUSION: We identified three predictive factors for non-SN metastases in breast cancer patients with a positive SN: size of the SN metastasis; primary tumor size; and vessel invasion. We were not able to identify a specific group of patients with a positive SN in whom the risk for non-SN metastases was less than 5%.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Differences in sentinel lymph node pathology protocols lead to differences in surgical strategy in breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, there is no consensus on the pathology protocol to be used to examine the sentinel lymph node (SN). At present, therefore, various hospitals use different SN pathology protocols of which the effect has not been fully elucidated. We hypothesized that differences between hospitals in SN pathology protocols affect subsequent surgical treatment strategies. METHODS: Patients from four hospitals (A-D) were prospectively registered when they underwent an SN biopsy. In hospitals A, B, and C, three levels of the SN were examined pathologically, whereas in hospital D, at least seven additional levels were examined. In the absence of apparent metastases with hematoxylin and eosin examination, immunohistochemical examination was performed in all four hospitals. RESULTS: In total, 541 eligible patients were included. In hospital D, more patients were diagnosed with a positive SN (P < .001) as compared with hospitals A, B, and C, mainly because of increased detection of isolated tumor cells. This led to more completion axillary lymph node dissections in hospital D (66.3% of patients (P < .0001), compared with 29.0% in hospitals A, B, and C combined). Positive non-SNs were detected in 13.9% of patients in hospital D, compared with 9.7% in hospitals A, B, and C (P = .70). That is, in 52.4% of patients in hospital D, a negative completion axillary lymph node dissection was performed, compared with 19.3% of patients in hospitals A, B, and C combined. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in SN pathology protocols between hospitals do have a substantial effect on SN findings and subsequent surgical treatment strategies. Whether ultrastaging and, thus, additional surgery can offer better survival remains to be determined.

Adult↗