Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Sections
    • Collections
  • Podcasts
  • Author Info
    • Overview for authors
    • Publication fees
    • Forms
    • Editorial policies
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
  • Careers
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CMAJ Open
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CJS
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CMAJ Open
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CJS

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Sections
    • Collections
  • Podcasts
  • Author Info
    • Overview for authors
    • Publication fees
    • Forms
    • Editorial policies
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
  • Careers
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact
  • Subscribe to our alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow CJS on Twitter
Quill on Scalpel

Sentinel lymph-node biopsy in breast cancer

David R. McCready, Audley J. Bodurtha, Noelle L. Davis, Sarkis Meterissian, Jean Robert and Walley J. Temple
CAN J SURG December 01, 1999 42 (6) 406-407;
David R. McCready
†President, Canadian Society of Surgical Oncology. Associate Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Audley J. Bodurtha
‡Past-President, Canadian Society of Surgical Oncology. Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Noelle L. Davis
§Head of Research Committee, Canadian Society of Surgical Oncology. Associate Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarkis Meterissian
¶Secretary, Canadian Society of Surgical Oncology. Assistant Professor, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Que.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jean Robert
|Member, Canadian Society of Surgical Oncology. Professor, Université Laval, Quebec, Que.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Walley J. Temple
**Past-President, Canadian Society of Surgical Oncology. Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Health Canada’s “Clinical practice guidelines for the care and treatment of breast cancer”1 states that levels I and II axillary lymphadenectomy should be considered as part of the standard care for patients having early breast cancer. Axillary dissection provides important staging information that can be used to estimate prognosis and subsequently to plan further systemic and radiation treatment. Axillary lymphadenectomy provides excellent long-term regional control from nodal metastases and may well have an impact on survival.2 However, these benefits come with a price: the procedure is associated with postoperative pain, a possible reduction in the range of shoulder movement, some cutaneous numbness and dysesthesia, physiologic distress and, in some, significant lymphedema.1

The quest for an accurate staging procedure with a reduced complication rate has led to the acceptance by some of the sentinel lymph-node (SLN) biopsy. Certainly, lymphatic mapping and SLN biopsy as pioneered by Krag and associates,3 Giuliano and associates,4 Borgstein and associates5 and others6 have clearly changed our understanding of the biology of regional breast cancer metastases. Many techniques have been used and their use has been reviewed.7 Essentially, the SLN is the primary node that receives lymphatic drainage from a tumour, and its pathologic status appears to reflect the status of the nodal basin. Subsequent studies illustrated 2 important facts: first, precise identification and histologic assessment of the SLN can be accomplished in most breast cancer patients who undergo primary surgery and can provide accurate staging information; second, success and accuracy are associated with a significant learning phase and are only achieved after considerable experience with the technical aspects of lymphatic mapping, surgical biopsy and pathologic interpretation of the SLN. Krag and colleagues8 found that the ability to successfully find an SLN, as defined by the identification of a “hot spot” after technetium sulfur colloid injection, was surgeon-dependent. The false-negative rate also varied considerably (from 0% to 28.6%) among surgeons.

Currently, there is tremendous interest in SLN bipsy from both surgical and patient communities. Many surgeons are keen to learn the technique and incorporate the procedure into their practice. Yet, given the staging accuracy (95% to 97%) of the currently recommended levels I and II axillary node dissection, and the regional control and possible survival benefits, we believe that surgeons must be able to achieve, document and maintain at least a 90% rate of successfully finding a sentinel node and a false-negative rate of less than 5% before they discontinue the accompanying axillary lymphadenectomy. It should also be noted that within the population of patients with nodal metastases, only a small percentage of the axillary nodes are positive (e.g., 1 to 3 nodes positive out of 10 to 15 nodes = 7% to 30% positive). Therefore, a poorly performed SLN biopsy (a random node biopsy is the extreme) will more than likely give a false-negative result, and the ramifications regarding prognosis and selection of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy are significant. If an SLN cannot be successfully identified, then the standard levels I and II axillary node dissection should be done.

Sentinel lymph-node biopsy has now reached the point at which it should be compared to a conventional levels I and II axillary dissection in randomized clinical trials of clinically node-negative breast cancer patients. Both the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project and the American College of Surgeons have initiated studies that will determine whether sentinel-node resection can provide equivalent or better regional control, disease-free survival and overall survival, and if these results can be achieved with less morbidity. All centres are encouraged to participate in these trials. However, until these studies have been completed and the use of SLN biopsy is validated, the Canadian Society of Surgical Oncology stands by the current practice guidelines that incorporate levels I and II axillary dissection as part of standard breast cancer treatment. Our recommendation is that Canadian general surgeons plan to acquire the necessary equipment, collaborate with their nuclear medicine and pathology colleagues to build an expert team, complete a recognized training program designed to teach the technique and perform a minimum of 30 SLN biopsies with concurrent levels I and II axillary lymph-node dissections in order to document proficiency and accuracy. Thirty SLN biopsies and axillary dissections should provide about 10 positive axillary node biopsies and thus provide some basis for calculating an individual surgeon’s false-negative rate. If the standard axillary dissection is not part of the treatment plan, the patient should be fully informed, not only of the possible benefits of reduced axillary morbidity but also the current state of knowledge, the individual surgeon’s false-negative rate and possible consequences of a false-negative result. The sentinel-node biopsy has the potential to reduce morbidity from breast cancer surgery, but it must be incorporated into practice with due diligence.

Footnotes

  • ↵* Endorsed by the Executive of the Canadian Society of Surgical Oncology.

References

  1. ↵
    Clinical practice guidelines for the care and treatment of breast cancer. CMAJ 1998;158(Suppl 3):S22–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Orr RK
    . The impact of prophylactic axillary node dissection on breast cancer survival — a Bayesian meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 1999;6(1):109–16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Krag DN,
    2. Waver DL,
    3. Alex JC,
    4. Fairbank JT
    . Surgical resection and radio-localization of the sentinel lymph node in breast cancer using a gamma probe. Surg Oncol 1993;2:335–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Giuliano AE,
    2. Kirgan DM,
    3. Guenther JM,
    4. Morton DL
    . Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymphadenectomy for breast cancer. Ann Surg 1994; 220 (3): 391–401.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Borgstein PJ,
    2. Meijor S,
    3. Pijpers R
    . Intradermal blue dye to identify sentinel lymph node in breast cancer. Lancet 1997;349:1668–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Veronesi U,
    2. Paganelli G,
    3. Galimberti V,
    4. Viale G,
    5. Zurrida S,
    6. Bedoni M,
    7. et al
    . Sentinel-node biopsy to avoid axillary dissection in breast cancer with clinically negative lymph-nodes. Lancet 1997; 349(9069):1864–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Krag DN
    . Minimal access surgery for staging regional lymph nodes: the sentinel-node concept. Curr Probl Surg 1998;35(11):951–1016.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Krag D,
    2. Weaver D,
    3. Ashikaga T,
    4. Moffat E,
    5. Klimberg VS,
    6. Shriver C,
    7. et al
    . The sentinel node in breast cancer — a multicenter validation study. N Engl J Med 1998;339(14):941–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Journal of Surgery: 42 (6)
CAN J SURG
Vol. 42, Issue 6
1 Dec 1999
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CJS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Sentinel lymph-node biopsy in breast cancer
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CJS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CJS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Sentinel lymph-node biopsy in breast cancer
David R. McCready, Audley J. Bodurtha, Noelle L. Davis, Sarkis Meterissian, Jean Robert, Walley J. Temple
CAN J SURG Dec 1999, 42 (6) 406-407;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Sentinel lymph-node biopsy in breast cancer
David R. McCready, Audley J. Bodurtha, Noelle L. Davis, Sarkis Meterissian, Jean Robert, Walley J. Temple
CAN J SURG Dec 1999, 42 (6) 406-407;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Surgical Oncology

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Alerts
  • RSS

Authors & Reviewers

  • Overview for Authors
  • Publication Fees
  • Forms
  • Editorial Policies
  • Submit a manuscript

About

  • General Information
  • Staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • Reprints
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibility
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 2291-0026

All editorial matter in CJS represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected].

View CMA's Accessibility policy.

Powered by HighWire