Sentinel lymph nodes: optimizing success

The sentinel node in breast cancer

Biopsy of the sentinel lymph node now forms part of routine management in many centres dealing with early stage breast cancer. This article seeks to discuss developments over the past number of years and to summarise current practice.

The sentinel node in breast cancer: an update

There has been rapid acceptance of sentinel lymph node biopsy into the management of breast cancer over the past 10 years. This article seeks to highlight the controversies and to summarise its current status.

Update on detection of sentinel lymph nodes in patients with breast cancer

Sentinel lymph node biopsy is now the practice of choice for the management of many patients with breast cancer. This was not true in the early 1990s, when the first such procedures were performed and protocols for such were refined often. This was also not true in the first years of the 21st century, when a decade of collective experience and information acquired from numerous clinical investigations dictated additional subtle and not-so-subtle refinements of the procedures. However, it is true today; reports of the latest round of clinical investigations indicate that there are several breast cancer sentinel node procedures that result in successful identification of potential sentinel nodes in nearly all patients who are eligible for such procedures. A significant component of many of these successful sentinel node procedures is a detection and localization protocol that involves radiotracer methodologies, including radiopharmaceutical administration, preoperative nuclear medicine imaging, and intraoperative gamma counting. The present state and roles of nuclear medicine protocols used in breast cancer sentinel lymph node biopsy procedures is reviewed with emphasis on discussion of recent results, unresolved issues, and future considerations. Included are brief reviews of present radiotracer and blue-dye techniques for node localization, including remarks about injection strategies, counting probe technology, and radiation safety. Included also are discussions of on-going investigations of the implications of the presence of micrometastases; of the management value of detection, localization, and excision of extra-axillary nodes such as internal mammary nodes; and of the broad range of recurrence rates presently being reported. Remarks on the present and possible near- and long-term roles for nuclear medicine in the staging of breast cancer patients including comments on positron emission tomography and intraoperative imaging conclude the article.

Current status of PET in breast cancer imaging, staging, and therapy

The exact roles of PET in the imaging management of patients with known or suspected breast cancer are still in evolution. For assessing primary lesions, it is sometimes possible with PET to detect cancers occult on standard methods. This could be useful in high-risk patient populations, but in dense breasts, background FDG uptake is often higher than in women with fatty breasts, making identification of lesions < 1 cm in size improbable with current technologies. Distinguishing malignant from benign primary breast disease would seem better addressed by biopsy. With a positive predictive value of FDG PET for cancer over 96%, any FDG-avid breast lesion is highly suspicious and merits biopsy. Although PET in theory should be useful for depicting multifocal disease before surgery, the limitations in detecting small lesions in the breast limit the contribution of PET at present. It is most likely that PET will have a greater role in depicting primary breast lesions as dedicated PET imaging devices for the breast evolve. For axillary and internal mammary nodal staging, results with FDG PET are variable. Small nodal metastases < or = 5 mm will be missed by PET, whereas larger ones are more likely to be detected. PET can depict internal mammary nodes, but the accuracy of the method in this setting is not known, nor is there consensus on how identifying internal mammary node metastases will change treatment. Based on the available data, for pT1 breast lesions, PET, if negative, is not an adequate replacement for sentinel node surgery or axillary dissection. Results from the multicenter trial will be of great interest. Clearly PET can stage metastatic disease well. Bone scans with 18F- are exquisitely sensitive for metastases, and FDG is also very good. However, FDG PET can miss some blastic metastases to bone so at present FDG is not capable of excluding the presence of bone metastases. PET seems very well suited to detecting recurrences in soft tissues and the brachial plexus region in particular. The utility of PET in planning the treatment of individual patients appears promising. Although results must be confirmed in larger studies, it appears safe to conclude that failure of a chemotherapy regimen to decrease FDG uptake promptly in a breast cancer portends poor response. This does not hold true for hormonal therapy. At present, labeled estrogens are not widely available and cannot be recommended for clinical use. Thus, PET has shown considerable promise in breast cancer imaging, but in the author's experience is best applied to solve difficult imaging questions in specific patients and is not recommended for routine evaluation of the breast cancer patient. However, in larger primary tumors, the ability to use PET for staging and to plan treatment response suggest it will be more widely used. Additional studies with newer PET imaging devices and FDG and other tracers will help us better determine the role of PET in routine clinical care of the patient with known or suspected breast cancer. Certainly, this represent a fertile area for translational research studies over the next several years with the potential to significantly alter the way breast cancer is imaged and managed.

Overview of breast imaging

In summary, it is an exciting time in breast imaging with many tools being brought to bear on an ever more common problem. The challenge for this decade will be to develop optimal cost-effective strategies to use all the tools now available with minimal discomfort and disfigurement to the patient.