4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

The Role for Sentinel Lymph Node Dissection after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients who Present with Node-Positive Breast Cancer

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 19, 期 10, 页码 3177-3184

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-012-2484-2

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sentinel lymph node (SLN) dissection has been investigated after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and has shown mixed results. Our objective was to evaluate SLN dissection in node-positive patients and to determine whether postchemotherapy ultrasound could select patients for this technique. Between 1994 and 2010, 150 patients with biopsy proven axillary metastasis underwent SLN dissection after chemotherapy and 121 underwent axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). Clinicopathologic characteristics were analyzed before and after chemotherapy. Statistical analyses included Fisher's exact test for nodal response and multivariate logistic regression for factors associated with false-negative events. Median age was 52 years. Median tumor size at presentation was 2 cm. The SLN was identified in 93 % (139/150). In 111 patients in whom a SLN was identified and ALND performed, 15 patients had a false-negative SLN (20.8 %). In the 52 patients with normalized nodes on ultrasound, the false-negative rate decreased to 16.1 %. Multivariate analysis revealed smaller initial tumor size and fewer SLNs removed (< 2) were associated with a false-negative SLN. There were 63 (42 %) patients with a pathologic complete response (pCR) in the nodes. Of those with normalized nodes on ultrasound, 38 (51 %) of 75 had a pCR. Only 25 (33 %) of 75 with persistent suspicious/malignant-appearing nodes had a pCR (p = 0.047). Approximately 42 % of patients have a pCR in the nodes after chemotherapy. Normalized morphology on ultrasound correlates with a higher pCR rate. SLN dissection in these patients is associated with a false-negative rate of 20.8 %. Removing fewer than two SLNs is associated with a higher false-negative rate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据