Should positive sentinel node cases have a further axillary dissection?

The ACOSOG Z11 trial is rapidly changing use of axillary dissection, but it is not known how generalizable the Z11 results are. This study compares characteristics of the Z11 patients with the larger group of sentinel node-positive patients and evaluates two previously described Louisville algorithms to determine whether they might still be useful to predict extent of axillary node involvement and guide management of the axilla. The Yale Breast Center database was queried to calculate the Louisville prediction points for patients with a positive sentinel node and to compare the predicted with actual results. Of 1215 sentinel node biopsies performed between 2004 and 2010, 282 (23%) had at least one positive node. Thirty-one per cent of these patients would have been eligible for Z11. This group had much less axillary node involvement than the 69 per cent who were ineligible. The Yale data confirmed the accuracy of the two Louisville models and showed that tumor size, number of positive sentinel nodes, and proportion of positive sentinel nodes were all significant predictors. However, these results were much more robust if at least three sentinel nodes had been removed. The Z11 patients were clearly a good risk group. The data validate the two Louisville models and suggest that the models may be useful to select patients to avoid axillary dissection, both among the currently Z11-eligible and -ineligible populations. A modified algorithm is proposed in which all patients with a positive sentinel node have at least three total nodes removed.

Download Full-text

Sentinel Node Biopsy Alone versus Completion Axillary Node Dissection in Node Positive Breast Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

International Journal of Breast Cancer ◽

10.1155/2014/513780 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 2014 ◽

pp. 1-10 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

Author(s):

Rachna Ram ◽

Jasprit Singh ◽

Eddie McCaig

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Sentinel Node ◽

Axillary Dissection ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Axillary Node ◽

Axillary Node Dissection ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Positive Sentinel Node ◽

Node Dissection

Introduction. There has been recent interest in validity of completion axillary node dissection after a positive sentinel node. This systematic review aims to ascertain if sentinel lymph node dissection alone was noninferior to axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer patients who have a positive sentinel node.Method. A systematic review of the electronic databases Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials was carried out. Only randomised trials that had patients with positive sentinel node as the study sample were included in the meta-analysis using the reported hazard ratios with a fixed effect model.Results. Three randomised controlled trials and five retrospective studies were identified. The pooled effect for overall survival was HR 0.94, 95% CI [0.79, 1.19], and for disease free survival was HR 0.83, 95% CI [0.60, 1.14]. The reported rates for locoregional recurrence were similar in both groups. The surgical morbidity was found to be significantly more in patients who had underwent axillary dissection.Conclusion. Amongst patients with micrometastasis in the sentinel node, no further axillary dissection is necessary. For patients with macrometastasis in the sentinel node, it is reasonable to consider omitting axillary dissection to avoid the morbidity of the procedure.

Download Full-text