What to Do with Non-visualized Sentinel Nodes? A Dutch Nationwide Survey Study

Future Directions in the Assessment of Axillary Lymph Nodes in Patients with Breast Cancer

Background and Objectives: Breast cancer (BC) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and accurate assessment of axillary lymph nodes (ALNs) is crucial for patient management and outcomes. We aim to summarize the current state of ALN assessment techniques in BC and provide insights into future directions. Materials and Methods: This review discusses various imaging techniques used for ALN evaluation, including ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography. It highlights advancements in these techniques and their potential to improve diagnostic accuracy. The review also examines landmark clinical trials that have influenced axillary management, such as the Z0011 trial and the IBCSG 23-01 trial. The role of artificial intelligence (AI), specifically deep learning algorithms, in improving ALN assessment is examined. Results: The review outlines the key findings of these trials, which demonstrated the feasibility of avoiding axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in certain patient populations with low sentinel lymph node (SLN) burden. It also discusses ongoing trials, including the SOUND trial, which investigates the use of axillary ultrasound to identify patients who can safely avoid sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). Furthermore, the potential of emerging techniques and the integration of AI in enhancing ALN assessment accuracy are presented. Conclusions: The review concludes that advancements in ALN assessment techniques have the potential to improve patient outcomes by reducing surgical complications while maintaining accurate disease staging. However, challenges such as standardization of imaging protocols and interpretation criteria need to be addressed. Future research should focus on large-scale clinical trials to validate emerging techniques and establish their efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Over-all, this review provides valuable insights into the current status and future directions of ALN assessment in BC, highlighting opportunities for improving patient care.

Does failed mapping predict sentinel lymph node metastasis in cN0 breast cancer?

Aims: The clinical significance of nonvisualized sentinel lymph nodes (non-vSLNs) is unknown. The authors sought to determine the incidence of non-vSLNs on lymphoscintigraphy, the identification rate during surgery, factors associated with non-vSLNs and related axillary management. Patients & methods: A total of 30,508 consecutive SLN procedures performed at a single institution from 2000 to 2017 were retrospectively studied. Associations between clinicopathological factors and the identification of SLNs during surgery were assessed. Results: Non-vSLN occurred in 525 of the procedures (1.7%). In 73.3%, at least one SLN was identified intraoperatively. Nodal involvement was only significantly associated with SLN nonidentification (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Patients with non-vSLN had an increased risk for SLN metastasis. The detection rate during surgery was consistent, reducing the amount of unnecessary axillary dissection.

Clinical risk analysis of non-visualized sentinel lymph node in breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the positive rate of non-visualized sentinel lymph nodes (non-vSLN) [1] in breast cancer (BC) patients and the discrepancy of non-vSLN among different molecular subtypes, in order to further evaluate the clinical risk of non-vSLNs.

METHODS

A total of 627 patients were retrospectively analyzed. These patients were pathologically confirmed with invasive breast cancer and underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). Various factors were compared using chi-square test. The positive rate of SLNs between non-vSLNs and visible sentinel lymph nodes (vSLNs) were compared. Moreover, factors that influenced the prognosis, such as ER, PR, HER-2, histological grade and lymph node metastasis were compared between these two groups.

RESULTS

Among the 627 patients who underwent SLNB, 196 patients had non-vSLNs, accounting for 31.26% (196/627) and 113 patients had positive SLNs, accounting for 18.02% (113/627). Furthermore, 40.71% (46/113) of patients with positive SLNs had non-vSLN, and 17.39% (8/46) of patients with non-vSLN had HER-2+BC. In contrast, 35.82% (24/67) of patients with vSLNs had HER-2+BC. Moreover, 23.91% (11/46) of patients with non-vSLN and 5.97% (4/67) of patients with vSLNs had triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The metastasis rate was 41.30% (19/46) in the non-vSLN group and 43.28% (29/67) in the vSLN group. The difference in the rate of positive SLNs between the non-vSLN and the vSLN groups was statistically significant (P< 0.05), in which the positive rate of SLNs in the non-vSLN group was remarkably higher than that in the vSLN group. The differences in the proportion of HER-2+BC and TNBC between the non-vSLN and the vSLN groups were statistically significant (P< 0.05), in which HER-2+BCwas evidently higher in the vSLN group than in the non-vSLN group. Meanwhile, TNBC was markedly higher in non-vSLN group than in the vSLN group. Furthermore, differences in Luminal A subtype, Luminal B subtype and non-SLN metastasis between these two groups was not statistically significant. In addition, the difference in non-SLN metastasis rate was not statistically significant among breast cancers of different molecular subtypes and between the non-vSLN and the vSLN groups.

CONCLUSION

Breast cancer patients with positive non-vSLNs are more likely to have a TNBC subtype relative to patients with positive vSLN. Breast cancer patients with non-vSLN have higher positive rate of SLNs. The non-SLN metastasis rate in positive SLN patients was not correlated to the molecular subtype of breast cancer.