Suppr超能文献

乳腺癌中活性染料引导的淋巴绘图与染料加γ探针引导的前哨淋巴结活检的比较。

Comparison of vital dye-guided lymphatic mapping and dye plus gamma probe-guided sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer.

作者信息

Cserni Gábor, Rajtár Mária, Boross Gábor, Sinkó Mária, Svébis Mihály, Baltás Béla

机构信息

Department of Surgical Pathology, Bács-Kiskun County Teaching Hospital, University of Szeged Medical School, H-6000 Kecskemét, Nyíri út 38, POB 149, Hungary.

出版信息

World J Surg. 2002 May;26(5):592-7. doi: 10.1007/s00268-001-0274-2. Epub 2002 Mar 1.

Abstract

The optimal technique for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is still debated. SLNB with peritumoral injection of Patent blue dye was performed in 129 clinically T1-T2 and N0 breast cancers in 127 patients (group A); it was later replaced by combined dye and radiocolloid-guided SLNB preceded by lymphoscintigraphy in 72 breast cancer patients (group B). This study compares these two methods. All patients underwent completion axillary dissection. Means of 1.4 and 1.3 SLNs were identified in groups A and B, respectively. The mean number of non-SLNs for the whole series was 14.9 (range 5-42). The first 53 cases of lymphatic mapping (dye only) comprised the institutional learning period during which the identification rate of at least 1 SLN in 30 consecutive attempts reached 90%. The identification rate for the subsequent 76 group A patients was 92%. The accuracy rate of SLNBs for overall axillary nodal status prediction and the false-negative rate for group A patients (after excluding the learning-phase cases) were 93% and 10%, respectively. All 72 group B cases had at least one SLN identified, and only one false-negative case occurred in this group (accuracy and false-negative rates of 99% and 3%, respectively). Both the dye-only and the combined SLNB methods are suitable for SLN identification, but the latter works better and results in higher accuracy, a higher negative predictive value, and a lower false-negative rate. It is therefore the method of choice.

摘要

前哨淋巴结活检(SLNB)的最佳技术仍存在争议。对127例临床T1-T2期且N0的乳腺癌患者中的129例进行了瘤周注射专利蓝染料的SLNB(A组);随后在72例乳腺癌患者中采用了联合染料和放射性胶体引导的SLNB,并在之前进行了淋巴闪烁显像(B组)。本研究比较了这两种方法。所有患者均接受了腋窝清扫术。A组和B组分别平均识别出1.4个和1.3个前哨淋巴结。整个系列中非前哨淋巴结的平均数量为14.9个(范围5-42个)。前53例淋巴绘图(仅染料法)构成了机构学习期,在此期间,连续30次尝试中至少识别出1个前哨淋巴结的识别率达到90%。随后76例A组患者的识别率为92%。A组患者(排除学习期病例后)前哨淋巴结活检对腋窝淋巴结总体状态预测的准确率和假阴性率分别为93%和10%。B组72例患者均至少识别出1个前哨淋巴结,该组仅出现1例假阴性病例(准确率和假阴性率分别为99%和3%)。单纯染料法和联合前哨淋巴结活检方法均适用于前哨淋巴结的识别,但后者效果更好,准确率更高,阴性预测值更高,假阴性率更低。因此,它是首选方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验