Back to Search Start Over

Sentinel Node Procedure Obsolete in Lumpectomy for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

Authors :
Heymans C
van Bastelaar J
Visschers RGJ
Vissers YLJ
Source :
Clinical breast cancer [Clin Breast Cancer] 2017 Jun; Vol. 17 (3), pp. e87-e93. Date of Electronic Publication: 2016 Oct 19.
Publication Year :
2017

Abstract

Background: Patients with a preoperative needle-biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) may have an indication for a sentinel lymph node biopsy if invasive carcinoma is found. We investigated how often a positive sentinel node and invasive carcinoma occurred in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of DCIS and whether this influenced the adjuvant regime.<br />Materials and Methods: From 2005 to 2014, the records of 240 patients with needle-biopsy diagnosis of DCIS were retrospectively reviewed for postoperative pathology outcomes of the sentinel node and breast, and decisions on adjuvant treatment. Descriptive statistics and univariable and multivariable analysis were used.<br />Results: A total of 160 of 240 patients underwent a sentinel node biopsy. Sixteen of 85 patients undergoing lumpectomy had occult invasive cancer. One patient had a micrometastasis. In patients undergoing mastectomy, 30 of 155 patients had occult invasive cancer. One patient had a micrometastasis, and 3 had a macrometastases. Eleven patients received adjuvant treatment as a result of invasive cancer. Three patients received adjuvant treatment (radiotherapy of the axilla or axillary dissection) because of node positivity. These patients underwent a primary mastectomy.<br />Conclusion: A positive sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with needle-biopsy diagnosis of ductal DCIS is rare and rarely changes adjuvant regimes. Current Dutch guidelines should be updated.<br /> (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1938-0666
Volume :
17
Issue :
3
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Clinical breast cancer
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
28162949
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2016.10.002