4.1 Review

Axillary Needle Biopsy in the Era of American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011: Institutional Experience With a Largely Urban Minority Population and Review of the Literature

Journal

CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
Volume 14, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

CUREUS INC
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.24317

Keywords

resection; breast cancer; axillary dissection; axillary needle biopsy; axillary ultrasound

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found that at least one-quarter of patients with positive preoperative axillary needle biopsies may potentially only require sentinel lymph node biopsy instead of axillary lymph node dissection.
Background: The American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011 trial demonstrated that sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) alone is adequate for axillary control in patients with one to two positive axillary lymph nodes. However, axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) is required in patients with N1 disease diagnosed with a preoperative needle biopsy. In this report, we determined how many patients could potentially have had SNB alone based on finding only one to two positive nodes in the axilla. Methods: A retrospective review of patients with positive preoperative axillary needle biopsy undergoing ALND was used to identify rates of high volume axillary disease (>2 positive nodes). Wilcoxon's rank-sum and Fisher's exact test were used for statistical analysis. A review of the literature is included for comparison. Results: 73% of 51 total patients with a positive needle biopsy had >2 positive nodes on axillary dissection. The high-volume axillary disease was significantly more likely with the presence of lymphovascular invasion and extranodal extension. Conclusions: Patients with positive preoperative axillary needle biopsies have a significantly higher rate of high volume axillary disease. However, at least one-quarter of these patients will have <3 positive nodes and potentially could have been treated with SNB alone.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available