4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Is routine intraoperative frozen-section examination of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer worthwhile?

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 7, 期 9, 页码 651-655

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1007/s10434-000-0651-3

关键词

sentinel lymph nodes; frozen section; macrometastases; micrometastases

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Routine intraoperative frozen section (FS) of sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) can detect metastatic disease, allowing immediate axillary dissection and avoiding the need for reoperation. Routine FS is also costly, increases operative time, and is subject to false-negative results. We examined the benefit of routine intraoperative FS among the first 1000 patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center who had SLN biopsy for breast cancer. Methods: We performed SLN biopsy with intraoperative FS in 890 consecutive breast cancer patients, none of whom had a back-up axillary dissection planned in advance. Serial sections and immunohistochemical staining for cytokeratins were performed on all SLN that proved negative on FS. The sensitivity of FS was determined as a function of (1) tumor size and (2) volume of metastatic disease in the SLN, and the benefit of FS was defined as the avoidance of a reoperative axillary dissection. Results: The sensitivity of FS ranged from 40% for patients with T1a to 76% for patients with T2 cancers. The volume of SLN metastasis was highly correlated with tumor size, and FS was far more effective in detecting macrometastatic disease (sensitivity 92%) than micrometastases (sensitivity 17%). The benefit of FS in avoiding reoperative axillary dissection ranged from 4% for T1a (6 of 143) to 38% for T2 (45 of 119) cancers. Conclusions: In breast cancer patients having SLN biopsy, the failure of routine intraoperative FS is largely the failure to detect micrometastatic disease. The benefit of routine intraoperative FS increases with tumor size. Routine FS may not be indicated in patients with the smallest invasive cancers.

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