Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with T2 to T4, N0 and N1 breast cancer

The Feasibility and Reliability of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients With Negative Axillary Lymph Nodes-A Meta-analysis

Background

The application of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has expanded from early breast cancer to locally advanced breast cancer with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). For patients with negative axillary lymph nodes, performing SLNB before or after NAC remains controversial.

Objectives

To evaluate the diagnostic feasibility and reliability of SLNB after NAC in breast cancer patients with negative axillary nodes at initial diagnosis.

Design

To calculate pooled identification rate (IR) and false negative rate (FNR) of SLNB after NAC on breast cancer patients with initially negative axillary nodes by enrolling relevant studies and perform subgroup analysis by the type of tracer and the number of biopsied sentinel lymph nodes in average.

Data sources and methods

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus databases from January 1, 2002, to March 1, 2022, were searched for studies. The QUADAS-2 tool and MINORS item were employed to evaluate the quality of the included studies. I2 and Q tests were used to evaluate the heterogeneity among the studies. Random-effects model and fixed-effects model were employed to calculate the pooled IR, FNR, and 95% confidence interval (CI). Publication bias was evaluated, and sensitivity analysis was performed. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the type of tracer (single/double) and the number of biopsied sentinel lymph nodes in average (⩽2/>2).

Results

A total of 21 studies covering 1716 patients were enrolled in this study (IR = 93%, 95% CI = 90-96; FNR = 8%, 95% CI = 6-11).

Conclusion

The SLNB after NAC can serve as a feasible and reliable approach in breast cancer patients with negative axillary lymph node. In our study, no significant impact of tracer was found on the IR and FNR of SLNB, and the number of biopsy nodes >2 leads to the decreased FNR of SLNB.

Performance and oncologic safety of sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: Results from a tertiary care center in Lebanon

BACKGROUND

The feasibility of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in initially node-positive patients is still controversial. We aim to evaluate the oncologic outcomes of SLNB after NACT and further compare the results between those who were initially node-negative and node-positive.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort that included patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and had surgical management between January 2010 and December 2016. Survival and recurrence data after 3-5 years were collected from patients' records. We divided patients into Group A who were initially node-negative and had SLNB ± axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and Group B who were node-positive and had SLNB ± ALND.

RESULTS

Among initially node-negative patients, 43 out of 63 patients did SLNB (Group A). However, among initially node-positive patients only 28 out of 123 patients did SLNB (Group B). Out of the 71 patients who did SLNB after NACT, 26 patients had positive SLNs with only 14 patients who further underwent ALND. The identification rate of SLNB was 100% in Group A and 96.4% in Group B. The survival curves by nodal status showed no significant difference between overall survival and recurrence-free survival at 5 years between patients in Group A versus Group.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that in properly selected patients, SLNB can be feasible after NACT. Our results resemble the reported literature on accuracy of SLNB after NACT and adds to the growing pool of data on this topic.

Feasibility of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Breast Cancer Patients with Axillary Conversion after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy-A Single-Tertiary Centre Experience and Review of the Literature

(1) Introduction: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is widely used in breast cancer patients who undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), replacing axillary lymph node dissection. While commonly accepted for cN0 patients, its role in cN1/2 patients remains controversial. Our study aims to investigate the role of SLNB in BC patients who underwent prior NAC and compare our results to those of other studies presented in the literature. (2) Materials and methods: Our retrospective study included 102 breast cancer patients who received NAC before 99mTc-albumin Nanocolloid SLN mapping and SLNB was performed, completed or not with axillary dissection. A review based on the PRISMA statement was also carried out, encompassing 20 studies. (3) Results: The lymphoscintigraphy performed after the administration of NAC presented an identification rate (IR) of 93.13%. IR for SLNB was 94.11%, with a false-negative rate (FNR) of 7.4%. After a median follow-up of 31.3 months, we obtained a distant disease-free survival rate of 98%. The results obtained by other groups were similar to those of our study, presenting IR in the range 80.8-96.8%, with FNR varying from 0 to 22%. (4) Conclusions: on conclusion, SLNB can accurately determine the lymph node status, with an acceptable FNR and maintain its expected prognostic role with low recurrence rates, and our results are comparable to those obtained by other studies.

Inflammatory Breast Cancer: Is There a Role for Deescalation of Surgery?

Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is a rare and aggressive presentation of breast cancer, characterized by higher propensity for locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis compared with non-IBC. Because of extensive parenchymal and overlying dermal lymphatic involvement by carcinoma, IBC is unresectable at diagnosis. Trimodality therapy (neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by modified radical mastectomy and adjuvant comprehensive chest wall and regional nodal radiotherapy) has been a well-accepted treatment algorithm for IBC. Over the last few decades, several innovations in systemic therapy have resulted in rising rates of pathologic complete response (pCR) in both the affected breast and the axilla. The latter may present an opportunity for deescalation of lymph node surgery in patients with IBC, as those with an axillary pCR may be able to avoid an axillary dissection. To this end, feasibility data are necessary to address this question. There are very limited data on the safety of breast conservation of IBC; therefore, mastectomy remains the standard of care for this disease. There are also no data addressing the safety of immediate reconstruction in patients with IBC. Considering that some degree of deliberate skin-sparing to facilitate immediate breast reconstruction would be expected, given the extensive skin involvement by disease at diagnosis, the safest oncologic strategy to breast reconstruction in IBC would be the delayed approach.

Outcomes of Sentinel Node Biopsy for Women with Breast Cancer After Neoadjuvant Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Real-World Data

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the accuracy of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for patients with breast cancer is inconclusive. This study reviewed the real-world data to determine the acceptability of SLNB after NAT.

METHODS

The study searched for articles in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. The primary outcomes were the identification rate for sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) and the false-negative rate (FNR) for SLNB. The study also evaluated the FNR in subgroups defined by tumor stage, nodal stage, hormone receptor status, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 status, tumor response, mapping technique, and number of SLNs removed.

RESULTS

The study retrieved 61 prospective and 18 retrospective studies with 10,680 initially cN± patients. The pooled estimate of the identification rate was 0.906 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.891-0.922), and the pooled FNR was 0.118 (95 % CI, 0.103-0.133). In subgroup analysis, the FNR was significantly higher for the patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative status and fewer than three SLNs removed. The FNR did not differ significantly between the patients with and those without complete tumor response. Among the patients with initial clinical negative axillary lymph nodes, the incidence of node metastasis was 26.8 % (275/1041) after NAT.

CONCLUSION

Real-world evidence indicates that the FNR of SLNB after NAT in breast cancer is 11.8 %, exceeding only slightly the commonly adopted threshold of 10 %. The FNR is significantly higher for patients with ER-negative status and removal of fewer than three SLNs. Using a dual tracer and removing at least three SLNs may increase the accuracy of SLNB after NAT.

Sentinel lymph node mapping in breast cancer patients following neoadjuvant chemotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis about head to head comparison of cN0 and cN + patients

PURPOSE

The effectiveness of sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping and biopsy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in axillary lymph node staging of breast cancer (BCa) patients with initial clinical node positive status (cN +) compared to clinical node negative status (cN0) is not yet known. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the accuracy of SLN mapping following NAC in cN + and cN0 BCa patients.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus were comprehensively reviewed to retrieve all the studies that performed SLN mapping/biopsy and standard axillary lymph node dissection on cN0 and cN + BCa patients following NAC. Pooled detection and false negative rates for N0 and N + patients including 95% confidence interval values (95% CI) were evaluated. Odds ratio (OR) and risk difference (RD) of SLN detection failure and false negative results were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 27 articles were included for SLN detection rate evaluation and 17 for false negative assessment. The OR and RD of detection failure in N + group compared with N0 group following NAC were 2.22 (p = 0.00, 95% CI 1.4-3.4) and 4% (p = 0.00, 95% CI 2-6%), respectively. The OR and RD of false negative rate were 1.6 (p = 0.01, 95% CI 1-2.6) and 8% (p = 0.02, 95% CI 1-14%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

SLN mapping in BCa patients following NAC shows high risk of detection failure and high false negative rate of SLN biopsy in cN + patients. In comparison with cN0 BCa patients, SLN mapping and biopsy after NAC was associated with almost two times higher odds of detection failure and false negative results in cN + patients; therefore, this method should not be recommended in this group of patients.

Assessment of sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in two subgroups: Initially node negative and node positive converted to node negative - A systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is increasingly used to treat patients with breast cancer, but the reliability of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) following chemotherapy is in doubt. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate studies that examine the results of SLNB after NAC to assess identification rate (IR) and false-negative rate (FNR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systemic searches were performed in the PubMed, ISI Web of Sciences, Scopus, and Cochrane databases from January 1, 2000, to November 30, 2016, for studies of SLNB after NAC for breast cancer and followed by axillary lymph node (LN) dissection in two subgroups: initially node negative and node positive converted to node negative. Two reviewers independently review quality of included studies. A random-effects model was used to pool IR and FNR with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and heterogeneity among studies was assessed by I 2 and Q-test.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies with 1521 patients in the initially node-negative subgroup and 13 studies with 1088 patients in the node-positive converted to node-negative subgroup, were included in this meta-analysis with IR and FNR of 94% (95% CI: 92-96) and 7% (95% CI: 5-9) in the initially node-negative subgroup and 89% (95% CI: 85-94) and 13% (95% CI: 7-18) in the node-positive converted to node-negative subgroup, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis showed acceptable IR and FNR in initially node-negative group and it seems feasible in these patients, but these parameters did not reach to predefined value in node-positive converted to node-negative group, and thus, it is not recommended in these patients.