4.7 Article

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Papillary Thyroid Cancer: 12 Years of Experience at a Single Institution

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 17, Issue 11, Pages 2970-2975

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-010-1141-x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Margie and Robert E. Petersen Foundation (Los Angeles, CA)
  2. QVC
  3. Fashion Footwear Association of New York Charitable Foundation (New York, NY)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The purpose of this study was to report our experience with sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) for papillary thyroid carcinoma, to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the procedure, and to examine its potential utility as a guide for central neck dissection. Materials and Methods. A retrospective chart review of patients undergoing total thyroidectomy from January 1998 thru January 2010 was conducted. Intratumoral injection of blue dye was used to identify the SLN. Central neck dissection (CND) was performed if the SLN was positive on frozen section. Locally advanced disease, previous thyroid surgery, or lymphadenopathy on preoperative imaging or intraoperative palpation were exclusion criteria. Results. A total of 211 patients underwent SLN mapping. Of these, 165 patients (78%) were female and 46 (22%) were male. Also, 75 (36%) were <= 45 years of age, and 136 (64%) were older than 45. Tumors were <= 2.0 cm (T1) in 142 patients (67%), 2-4 cm (T2) in 35 patients (17%), >4 cm with minimal invasion (T3) in 32 patients (15%), and locally invasive (T4) in 2 patients (1%). At least 1 blue node was found in 192 patients (91%). Also, 47 patients had a positive SLN on frozen section, with an additional 24 node-positive patients on permanent section, for a total of 71 (37%). There were 43 patients (91%) who underwent central neck dissection; 26 (60%) had additional metastases. Conclusions. Sentinel lymphadenectomy for papillary thyroid carcinoma is feasible, safe, and can identify patients who may benefit from central neck dissection.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available