Conserving the lymphatics from the arm using fluorescence imaging in patients with breast cancer at high risk of postoperative lymphedema: a pilot study

The Efficacy of Axillary Reverse Mapping for the Prevention of Lymphedema

BACKGROUND

Lymphedema (LE) is the most notable complication of axillary surgery. The axillary reverse mapping (ARM) technique was created to decrease LE. This study aims to evaluate a single surgeon's experience with ARM in patients undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) for breast cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent SLNB or ALND. Tumor characteristics and treatments received were evaluated. Surgical intervention and use of ARM were compared to assess LE rates. A subgroup analysis was also performed of patients who underwent NAC.

RESULTS

LE was initially reported in 7.1% (n = 10) of patients; 3.3% (n = 4) with SLNB and 35% (n = 6) with ALND. At initial follow-up, LE was reported 16.4% more often in patients who underwent ALND with no ARM, and 38.8% more often in patients who underwent ALND plus ARM. An increased risk of LE was found in patients treated with ALND (OR = 16.0, P < .001). All patients who underwent ARM were 12.75% more likely to develop LE if they received NAC (P < .05). Patients in the ALND group who also received NAC were more likely to undergo ARM as compared with patients in the SLNB group (P < .01).

DISCUSSION

Our study showed that ARM failed to decrease the incidence of LE. Until better surgical outcomes are shown for the prevention of LE using ARM, other approaches should be utilized. However, larger prospective studies are needed to evaluate ARM.

Near-Infrared Fluorescence Axillary Reverse Mapping (ARM) Procedure in Invasive Breast Cancer: Relationship between Fluorescence Signal in ARM Lymph Nodes and Clinical Outcomes

Simple Summary

Near-infrared fluorescence axillary reverse mapping (ARM) is a promising procedure for identification and preservation of arm lymphatic drainage during axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). We included 109 patients to analyze the indocyanine green fluorescence signal in ARM lymph nodes after resection. The fluorescence signal from ARM lymph nodes were compared with clinical findings to determine the importance of this criterion on the potential management of patients with ALND. ARM lymph nodes were identified in 94.5% of cases. The mean normalized fluorescence signal intensity value was 0.47 with no significant signal difference between metastatic and non-metastatic ARM lymph nodes. Only the preoperative diagnosis of metastasis in the axillary nodes of patients was significantly associated with a higher ARM node fluorescence signal intensity. Although preliminary results did not show that fluorescence signal intensity is a reliable diagnostic tool, the NIR fluorescence ARM procedure may be useful for ARM lymph node identification.

Abstract

The near-infrared (NIR) fluorescence axillary reverse mapping (ARM) procedure is a promising tool to identify and preserve arm lymphatic drainage during axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). The ARMONIC clinical trial was conducted to validate the technique on a large cohort of patients and to analyze the predictive clinical factors for ARM lymph node metastasis. For the first time, the fluorescence signal intensity from the ARM lymph nodes was measured and correlated with clinical findings. A total of 109 patients with invasive breast cancer and indications of mastectomy and ALND underwent the NIR fluorescence ARM procedure. Indocyanine green was administered by intradermal injection followed by intraoperative identification and resection of the ARM lymph nodes with NIR fluorescence camera guidance. The fluorescence signal intensity and signal distribution were then measured ex vivo and compared with clinical outcomes. ARM lymph nodes were successfully identified by fluorescence in 94.5% of cases. The mean normalized fluorescence signal intensity value was 0.47 with no significant signal difference between metastatic and non-metastatic ARM lymph nodes (p = 0.3728). At the microscopic level, the fluorescence signal distribution was focally intense in lymphoid tissue areas. Only the preoperative diagnosis of metastasis in the axillary nodes of patients was significantly associated with a higher ARM node fluorescence signal intensity (p = 0.0253), though it was not significantly associated with the pathological nodal (pN) status (p = 0.8081). Based on an optimal cut-off fluorescence value, the final sensitivity and specificity of the NIR fluorescence ARM procedure for ARM lymph node metastatic involvement were 64.7% and 47.3%, respectively. Although our preliminary results did not show that fluorescence signal intensity is a reliable diagnostic tool, the NIR fluorescence ARM procedure may be useful for ARM lymph node identification. Clinical trial registration: NCT02994225.

The involvement of axillary reverse mapping nodes in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Axillary reverse mapping (ARM) was developed to preserve the lymphatic drainage from the upper arm during sentinel lymph-node (SLN) biopsy or axillary lymph-node dissection (ALND). However, the oncological safety of ARM has been controversial because of not infrequent involvement of ARM nodes.

METHODS

Patients with clinically negative nodes (cN0) underwent SLN biopsy and ARM. SLNs were identified using blue dye and radioisotope, and ARM nodes were traced using the fluorescent method. Patients with positive SLN underwent the standard ALND. After surgery, they were followed up for more than 3 years.

RESULTS

A total of 507 patients with cN0 breast cancer were enrolled between May 2009 and November 2017. SLNs were identified in 499 (98%) of 507 patients, and ARM nodes were identified in 159 (31%) patients in the SLN field. The crossover rate of SLN-ARM nodes was 28%. Among 95 patients with positive SLNs, 70 patients underwent conventional ALND. ARM nodes were identified in 65 (93%) of those patients in the ALND field. The mean number of removed ARM nodes was 7.2 (range 0-25) in patients who underwent the standard ALND. Although ARM nodes were involved in 18 of 65 patients, the involved ARM nodes were the same SLNs identified in 14 (78%) patients. Since SLN-ARM nodes should be removed, ARM nodes were involved only in 4 (5.7%) patients after SLN biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

Except for positive SLN-ARM nodes, the involvement of ARM nodes is infrequent in patients with positive SLN.