Purpose: It is controversial whether sentinel node biopsy (SNB) without axillary dissection (AD) should be performed in cN1/2 breast cancer patients who become cN0 after neoadjuvant treatment, since the false negative rate (FNR) may be unacceptably high. We assessed outcomes to address this issue. Methods: We retrospectively assessed 396 cT1-4, cN0/1/2 patients, who became or remained cN0 after neoadjuvant treatment and underwent SNB with at least one sentinel node (SN) found, and AD not performed if the SN was negative. Results: After a median follow-up of 61 months (interquartile range 38-82), five-year overall survival was 90.7% (95%CI, 87.7-93.7) in the whole cohort, 93.3% (95%CI, 90.0-96.6) in those initially cN0, and 86.3% (95%CI, 80.6-92.1) in those initially cN1/2 (P = 0.12). Axillary failure occurred in only 1 (0.7%) initially cN1/2 patient who became cN0. In initially cN0 patients, and also initially cN1/2 patients who responded well to neoadjuvant treatment (ypT0/ypTx), SN-negativity was a significant predictor of good outcome, consistent with the known prognostic significance of axillary status, and suggesting that SN status accurately reflected axillary status. By contrast, in initially cN1/2 patients found to be ypT1/2/3, SN status (and whether or not AD was performed) had no influence on survival. Conclusions: These findings suggest that SNB is acceptable in cN1/2 patients who become cN0 after neoadjuvant therapy.

Sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant treatment in breast cancer : five-year follow-up of patients with clinically node-negative or node-positive disease before treatment / V. Galimberti, S.K. Ribeiro Fontana, P. Maisonneuve, F. Steccanella, A.R. Vento, M. Intra, P. Naninato, P. Caldarella, M. Iorfida, M. Colleoni, G. Viale, C.M. Grana, N. Rotmensz, A. Luini. - In: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY. - ISSN 0748-7983. - 42:3(2016 Mar), pp. 361-368. [10.1016/j.ejso.2015.11.019]

Sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant treatment in breast cancer : five-year follow-up of patients with clinically node-negative or node-positive disease before treatment

G. Viale;
2016

Abstract

Purpose: It is controversial whether sentinel node biopsy (SNB) without axillary dissection (AD) should be performed in cN1/2 breast cancer patients who become cN0 after neoadjuvant treatment, since the false negative rate (FNR) may be unacceptably high. We assessed outcomes to address this issue. Methods: We retrospectively assessed 396 cT1-4, cN0/1/2 patients, who became or remained cN0 after neoadjuvant treatment and underwent SNB with at least one sentinel node (SN) found, and AD not performed if the SN was negative. Results: After a median follow-up of 61 months (interquartile range 38-82), five-year overall survival was 90.7% (95%CI, 87.7-93.7) in the whole cohort, 93.3% (95%CI, 90.0-96.6) in those initially cN0, and 86.3% (95%CI, 80.6-92.1) in those initially cN1/2 (P = 0.12). Axillary failure occurred in only 1 (0.7%) initially cN1/2 patient who became cN0. In initially cN0 patients, and also initially cN1/2 patients who responded well to neoadjuvant treatment (ypT0/ypTx), SN-negativity was a significant predictor of good outcome, consistent with the known prognostic significance of axillary status, and suggesting that SN status accurately reflected axillary status. By contrast, in initially cN1/2 patients found to be ypT1/2/3, SN status (and whether or not AD was performed) had no influence on survival. Conclusions: These findings suggest that SNB is acceptable in cN1/2 patients who become cN0 after neoadjuvant therapy.
Axillary dissection; Neoadjuvant treatment; Primary breast cancer; Sentinel node biopsy
Settore MED/08 - Anatomia Patologica
mar-2016
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/367001
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 29
  • Scopus 122
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 107
social impact