PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11348304

Lymphatic Mapping and Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy.

Abstract

The status of the regional nodal basin remains the most important prognostic indicator of survival. The current standard of care for the management of invasive breast cancer is the complete removal of the tumor, with documentation of negative margins by either mastectomy or lumpectomy, followed by complete axillary lymph node dissection. Data suggest that complete lymph node dissection (CLND) provides better local control of the disease and may actually offer a survival advantage. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy are clearly changing this long-held paradigm and have the potential to change the standard of surgical care of the breast cancer patient. The purpose of this report is to describe the lymphatic mapping experience at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute. From April 1994 to January 1999, 1,147 consecutive breast cancer patients were enrolled in an institutional review board-approved lymphatic mapping protocol. Lymphatic mapping was performed using Tc99m-labeled sulfur colloid and isosulfan blue dye. An SLN was defined as any blue node and/or any hot node with ex vivo radioactivity counts >/=10 times an excised non-SLN or in situ radioactivity counts >/=3 times the background counts. Lymphatic mapping was successful in identifying the SLN in 1,098 of 1,147 (95.7%) cases. In the first 186 patients, all of whom underwent CLND following SLN biopsy, one false-negative biopsy was encountered for a false-negative rate of 0.83%. The method of diagnosis (excisional versus minimally invasive) does not appear to impact on lymphatic mapping. Tumor size, however, is directly related to the probability of axillary lymph node involvement. Advances in technology and the development of minimally invasive surgical techniques have heralded a new era in surgery. Lymphatic mapping and SLN biopsy may actually prove to be a more accurate method of identifying metastases to the axilla by allowing a more focused pathologic examination of the axillary node(s) at highest risk for metastasis. With adequate training, this technique can be readily implemented as a valuable tool in the surgical treatment of breast cancer.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Siddharth S. Bass, Gary H. Lyman, Christa R. McCann, Ni Ni Ku, Claudia Berman, Kara Durand, Monica Bolano, Sarah Cox, Christopher Salud, Douglas S. Reintgen, Charles E. Cox. 1999. Lymphatic Mapping and Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy.. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-4741.1999.00001.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗