The morbidity after SLN biopsy alone is not negligible but significantly lower compared with level I and II ALND. SLN biopsy can be performed with similar short- and intermediate-term morbidity in academic and nonacademic centers.
Axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) is the standard of care for nodal staging of patients with invasive breast cancer. Due to significant somatic and psychological side effects, replacement of ALND with less invasive techniques is desirable. The goal of this study was to evaluate the clinical usefulness of axillary lymph node (ALN) staging by means of positron emission tomography (PET) with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) in breast cancer patients qualifying for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). FDG-PET was performed within 1 week before surgery in 24 clinically node-negative breast cancer patients with tumors smaller than 3 cm. Sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) were identified by preoperative lymphoscintigraphy following peritumoral technetium 99m-labeled colloid albumin injection, and by intraoperative gamma detector and blue dye localization. Following SLNB, a standard ALND was performed. Serial sectioning and immunohistochemistry of the SLN as well as standard histologic examination of the non-SLN was performed. FDG-PET detected all primary breast cancers. Staging of ALNs by PET was accurate in 15 of 24 patients (62.5%), whereas PET staging was false negative in 8 of 10 node-positive patients and false-positive in 1 patient. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of FDG-PET for nodal status was 20%, 93%, 67%, and 62%, respectively. The mean diameter of false-negative ALN metastases was 7.5 mm (range 1-15 mm). Lymph node staging using FDG-PET is not accurate enough in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer qualifying for SLNB and should not be used for this purpose.
PurposeIndications for nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) have broadened to include the risk reducing setting and locally advanced tumors, which resulted in a dramatic increase in the use of NSM. The Oncoplastic Breast Consortium consensus conference on NSM and immediate reconstruction was held to address a variety of questions in clinical practice and research based on published evidence and expert panel opinion.MethodsThe panel consisted of 44 breast surgeons from 14 countries across four continents with a background in gynecology, general or reconstructive surgery and a practice dedicated to breast cancer, as well as a patient advocate. Panelists presented evidence summaries relating to each topic for debate during the in-person consensus conference. The iterative process in question development, voting, and wording of the recommendations followed the modified Delphi methodology.ResultsConsensus recommendations were reached in 35, majority recommendations in 24, and no recommendations in the remaining 12 questions. The panel acknowledged the need for standardization of various aspects of NSM and immediate reconstruction. It endorsed several oncological contraindications to the preservation of the skin and nipple. Furthermore, it recommended inclusion of patients in prospective registries and routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Considerable heterogeneity in breast reconstruction practice became obvious during the conference.ConclusionsIn case of conflicting or missing evidence to guide treatment, the consensus conference revealed substantial disagreement in expert panel opinion, which, among others, supports the need for a randomized trial to evaluate the safest and most efficacious reconstruction techniques.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-018-4937-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.