Department of Breast Cancer, Cancer Center, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, 106 Zhongshan Road 2, Guangzhou, China.
Clin Transl Oncol. 2013 Jan;15(1):79-84. doi: 10.1007/s12094-012-0885-0. Epub 2012 Aug 28.
The timing of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) of breast cancer in the neoadjuvant setting is still controversial. We retrospectively analyzed a Chinese patient cohort with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) to evaluate the accuracy and axilla sparing potentials of different SLNB timings with methylene blue alone for lymphatic mapping.
Patients with NAC and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and either pre- or post-NAC SLNB were eligible. Clinicopathological characteristics, identification rate (IR), false-negative rate (FNR), accuracy, and positive-predictive value were calculated and compared between the pre- and post-NAC SLNB group using appropriate statistical methods. Axilla sparing potentials of different SLNB timings were evaluated and compared.
One hundred and fifteen eligible cases were included, and 58 had pre-NAC SLNB while the other 57 had post-NAC SLNB. Both groups were comparable in clinicopathological characteristics, neoadjuvant treatments and pathologic complete response rate. IR, FNR, and accuracy of SLNB, as pre-NAC versus post-NAC, were 100 versus 98.2 % (P = 0.496), 0 versus 8.0 % (P = 0.181), and 100 versus 96.4 % (P = 0.239), respectively. Post-NAC SLNB had significantly higher positive-predictive value for ALNs than pre-NAC SLNB (70.0 vs. 36.4 %, P = 0.014), suggesting as high as 63.6 % of ALND performed in the pre-NAC group could have been avoided while only 30 % of ALND in the post-NAC group were theoretically unnecessary.
Both SLNB timings of breast cancer patients with NAC were feasible and accurate. Although pre-NAC SLNB tends to be better in accuracy, post-NAC SLNB is significantly superior in terms of axilla sparing.
新辅助化疗(NAC)背景下乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检(SLNB)的时机仍存在争议。我们回顾性分析了中国患者队列的 NAC 数据,以评估单独使用亚甲蓝淋巴示踪对不同 SLNB 时机的准确性和腋窝保留潜力。
适合纳入接受 NAC 及腋窝淋巴结清扫术(ALND),且进行或未进行 NAC 前 SLNB 的患者。采用适当的统计学方法计算并比较 NAC 前与 NAC 后 SLNB 组的临床病理特征、检出率(IR)、假阴性率(FNR)、准确率和阳性预测值。评估并比较不同 SLNB 时机的腋窝保留潜力。
共纳入 115 例符合条件的患者,其中 58 例进行 NAC 前 SLNB,57 例进行 NAC 后 SLNB。两组的临床病理特征、新辅助治疗和病理完全缓解率均相似。NAC 前与 NAC 后 SLNB 的 IR、FNR 和准确率分别为 100 比 98.2%(P=0.496)、0 比 8.0%(P=0.181)和 100 比 96.4%(P=0.239)。NAC 后 SLNB 对 ALN 的阳性预测值显著高于 NAC 前 SLNB(70.0 比 36.4%,P=0.014),提示 NAC 前 SLNB 组中有高达 63.6%的 ALND 可以避免,而 NAC 后 SLNB 组仅有 30%的 ALND 理论上是不必要的。
NAC 背景下乳腺癌患者两种 SLNB 时机均可行且准确。虽然 NAC 前 SLNB 在准确性方面有优势,但 NAC 后 SLNB 在腋窝保留方面具有显著优势。