Biomedical subjects

Phillip B Ley

Publications and source records attributed to Phillip B Ley.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Biopsy type does not influence sentinel lymph node status.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to determine whether the type of biopsy examination independently affects sentinel lymph node (SLN) status in breast cancer patients. METHODS: A prospective multicenter study of patients who had SLN biopsy examination followed by axillary node dissection was analyzed to determine whether the type of biopsy examination influenced SLN status. RESULTS: Of the 3853 patients studied, 32% had a positive SLN. Patients were diagnosed by fine-needle (N = 293), core-needle (N = 2154), excisional (N = 1386), or incisional (N = 20) biopsy procedures. The rates of SLN positivity for these groups were 45%, 32%, 29%, and 65%, respectively (P < .001). Other factors predictive of SLN status included: patient age (P < .001), tumor size (P < .001), tumor palpability (P < .001), number of SLN removed (P < .001), type of surgery (mastectomy vs. lumpectomy) (P < .001), histologic subtype (P = .048), and the use of immunohistochemistry (P < .001). All of these factors remained significant in the multivariate model except for histologic subtype and biopsy examination type. CONCLUSIONS: Biopsy examination type does not independently influence the risk for nodal metastasis.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

Effect of lymphoscintigraphy drainage patterns on sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy examination is an accepted method of staging breast cancer patients. SLN biopsy examination in patients with drainage to the internal mammary chain (IMC) nodes is controversial. METHODS: A prospective study of SLN biopsy examination followed by axillary dissection was analyzed to determine how surgeons manage patients with IMC drainage and the rates of axillary SLN identification and positivity in these cases. RESULTS: Lymphoscintigraphy was performed in 2196 (53.2%) of the 4131 patients in this study. IMC drainage was noted in 80 patients (3.6%). An axillary SLN was identified in 29 of the 40 patients with IMC drainage alone (72.5%). The rate of finding a positive axillary lymph node did not differ based on the lymphoscintigraphic pattern (P = .470). CONCLUSIONS: Most surgeons do not perform IMC SLN biopsy procedures. Even when lymphoscintigraphy shows isolated drainage to IMC nodes, axillary SLNs usually are identified. Lymphoscintigraphy therefore has limited usefulness.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

Surgeon and community factors affecting breast cancer sentinel lymph node biopsy.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether the results of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy are related to practice and community factors. METHODS: This prospective study included more than 300 surgeons from a variety of practice environments. Most surgeons had minimal experience with SLN biopsy prior to this study. Patients underwent attempted SLN biopsy, followed by completion axillary dissection. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess factors related to the SLN identification rate and the false negative rate. RESULTS: A total of 4131 patients were enrolled. SLN identification rate was 93%; the false negative (FN) rate was 7.9%. The only factor that was significantly associated with improved SLN identification rate (odds ratio [OR] 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12 to 2.36, P = .0126) and FN rate (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.32 to 4.79, P = .0073) was surgeon experience (>20 SLN cases). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon experience is the major factor that contributes to improved SLN biopsy results. SLN biopsy can be performed equally well by community and academic surgeons.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

Factors predicting failure to identify a sentinel lymph node in breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy is widely accepted as a minimally invasive method of nodal staging, failure to identify an SLN mandates a level I/II axillary node dissection. The purpose of this study was to elucidate factors that independently predict failure to identify an SLN. METHODS: Using a large multicenter prospective study of SLN biopsy for patients with invasive breast cancer, we performed univariate and multivariate regression analyses to determine clinicopathologic factors predictive of failure to identify an SLN. RESULTS: Of the total 4131 patients in the study, an SLN was not identified in 249 (6.0%). Tumor location (P = .409), biopsy type (P = .079), surgery type (P = .380), and histologic subtype (P = .999) were not significant predictors of failure to identify an SLN. On multivariate analysis, age greater than 60 years (OR = 1.469; 95% CI, 1.116-1.934, P = .006), nonpalpable tumors (OR = 0.639; 95% CI, 0.479-0.852, P = .002), injection technique with blue dye alone (OR = 0.389, 95% CI, 0.259-5.86, P < .001), and surgical experience of less than 10 SLN biopsy cases (OR = 1.886; 1.428-2.492, P < .001) were significant independent predictors of failure to identify an SLN. Optimal SLN biopsy technique using an intradermal and/or subareolar injection of radioactive colloid and blue dye can improve SLN identification rates regardless of patient and tumor characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Patient age and tumor palpability significantly affect the ability to identify an SLN in patients with breast cancer. Optimal injection technique can significantly improve sentinel node identification rate regardless of these factors.

Adult↗