본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Risk Factors for a False-Negative Result of Sentinel Node Biopsy in Patients with Clinically Node-Negative Breast Cancer

김승일|박종태|이학민|정준|안성귀|이승아|이학우|양반석
대한암학회 (Korean Cancer Association)|2018.07|Cancer Research and Treatment|제50권 제3호|pp. 625-633

2

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

Breast neoplasmsPrognosisFalse negativeSentinel lymph node
주제분류의학일반

초록

Purpose Although sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) can accurately represent the axillary lymph node (ALN) status, the false-negative rate (FNR) of SLNB is the main concern in the patients who receive SLNB alone instead of ALN dissection (ALND). Materials and Methods We analyzed 1,886 patients who underwent ALND after negative results of SLNB, retrospectively. A logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors associated with a falsenegative (FN) result. Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio of factors affecting disease-free survival (DFS). Results Tumor located in the upper outer portion of the breast, lymphovascular invasion, suspicious node in imaging assessment and less than three sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) were significant independent risk factors for FN in SLNB conferring an adjusted odds ratio of 2.10 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30 to 3.39), 2.69 (95% CI, 1.47 to 4.91), 2.59 (95% CI, 1.62 to 4.14), and 2.39 (95% CI, 1.45 to 3.95), respectively. The prognostic factors affecting DFS were tumor size larger than 2 cm (hazard ratio [HR], 1.86; 95% CI, 1.17 to 2.96) and FN of SLNB (HR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.42 to 4.42) in SLN-negative group (FN and true-negative), but in ALN-positive group (FN and true-positive), FN of SLNB (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.25) did not affect DFS. Conclusion In patients with risk factors for a FN such as suspicious node in imaging assessment, upper outer breast cancer, less than three harvested nodes, we need attention to find another metastatic focus in non-SLNs during the operation. It may contribute to provide an exact prognosis and optimizing adjuvant treatments.

Abstract

Purpose Although sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) can accurately represent the axillary lymph node (ALN) status, the false-negative rate (FNR) of SLNB is the main concern in the patients who receive SLNB alone instead of ALN dissection (ALND). Materials and Methods We analyzed 1,886 patients who underwent ALND after negative results of SLNB, retrospectively. A logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors associated with a falsenegative (FN) result. Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio of factors affecting disease-free survival (DFS). Results Tumor located in the upper outer portion of the breast, lymphovascular invasion, suspicious node in imaging assessment and less than three sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) were significant independent risk factors for FN in SLNB conferring an adjusted odds ratio of 2.10 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30 to 3.39), 2.69 (95% CI, 1.47 to 4.91), 2.59 (95% CI, 1.62 to 4.14), and 2.39 (95% CI, 1.45 to 3.95), respectively. The prognostic factors affecting DFS were tumor size larger than 2 cm (hazard ratio [HR], 1.86; 95% CI, 1.17 to 2.96) and FN of SLNB (HR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.42 to 4.42) in SLN-negative group (FN and true-negative), but in ALN-positive group (FN and true-positive), FN of SLNB (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.25) did not affect DFS. Conclusion In patients with risk factors for a FN such as suspicious node in imaging assessment, upper outer breast cancer, less than three harvested nodes, we need attention to find another metastatic focus in non-SLNs during the operation. It may contribute to provide an exact prognosis and optimizing adjuvant treatments.

참고문헌 (29)

  1. Mansel RE, "Randomized multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy versus standard axillary treatment in operable breast cancer: the ALMANAC Trial", J Natl Cancer Inst, 98, pp.599~609 (2006)[DOI]
  2. Veronesi U, "A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer", N Engl J Med, 349, pp.546~553 (2003)[DOI]
  3. Veronesi U, "Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: tenyear results of a randomized controlled study", Ann Surg, 251, pp.595~600 (2010)[DOI]
  4. Krag DN, "Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial", Lancet Oncol, 11, pp.927~933 (2010)[DOI]
  5. van der Ploeg IM, "Axillary recurrence after a tumour-negative sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature", Eur J Surg Oncol, 34, pp.1277~1284 (2008)[DOI]
  6. Lyman GH, "Sentinel lymph node biopsy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update", J Clin Oncol, 32, pp.1365~1383 (2014)[DOI]
  7. Kim T, "Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast carcinoma: a metaanalysis", Cancer, 106, pp.4~16 (2006)[DOI]
  8. Goldhirsch A, "Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009", Ann Oncol, 20, pp.1319~1329 (2009)[DOI]
  9. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, "NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer, version 3.2014" (2014)
  10. Edge SB, "AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed" (2010), Springer
  11. Krag DN, "Technical outcomes of sentinel-lymph-node resection and conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer: results from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase III trial", Lancet Oncol, 8, pp.881~888 (2007)[DOI]
  12. Martin RC 2nd, "Clinicopathologic factors associated with false-negative sentinel lymph-node biopsy in breast cancer", Ann Surg, 241, pp.1005~1012 (2005)[DOI]
  13. Goyal A, "Factors affecting failed localisation and falsenegative rates of sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer: results of the ALMA-NAC validation phase", Breast Cancer Res Treat, 99, pp.203~208 (2006)[DOI]
  14. Zavagno G, "Clinical impact of false-negative sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer", Eur J Surg Oncol, 34, pp.620~625 (2008)[DOI]
  15. Wong SL, "Sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer: impact of the number of sentinel nodes removed on the false-negative rate", J Am Coll Surg, 192, pp.684~689 (2001)[DOI]
  16. Pecha V, "Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy", Cancer, 117, pp.4606~4616 (2011)[DOI]
  17. Andersson Y, "Causes of false-negative sentinel node biopsy in patients with breast cancer", Br J Surg, 100, pp.775~783 (2013)[DOI]
  18. Mills P, "Axillary ultrasound assessment in primary breast cancer: an audit of 653 cases", Breast J, 16, pp.460~463 (2010)[DOI]
  19. Deurloo EE, "Reduction in the number of sentinel lymph node procedures by preoperative ultrasonography of the axilla in breast cancer", Eur J Cancer, 39, pp.1068~1073 (2003)[DOI]
  20. Leenders MW, "Ultrasound and fine needle aspiration cytology of axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer. to do or not to do?", Breast, 21, pp.578~583 (2012)[DOI]
  21. Valente SA, "Accuracy of predicting axillary lymph node positivity by physical examination, mammography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging", Ann Surg Oncol, 19, pp.1825~1830 (2012)[DOI]
  22. Hyun SJ, "Adding MRI to ultrasound and ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration reduces the false-negative rate of axillary lymph node metastasis diagnosis in breast cancer patients", Clin Radiol, 70, pp.716~722 (2015)[DOI]
  23. An YS, "Diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET", CT, ultrasonography and MRI: detection of axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer patients, 2014, pp.53, 89~94
  24. Wang Y, "Improved false negative rate of axillary status using sentinel lymph node biopsy and ultrasound-suspicious lymph node sampling in patients with early breast cancer", BMC Cancer, 15, pp.382~ (2015)[DOI]
  25. Tafra L, "Multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer using both technetium sulfur colloid and isosulfan blue dye", Ann Surg, 233, pp.51~59 (2001)[DOI]
  26. Woo CS, "Lymph node status combined with lymphovascular invasion creates a more powerful tool for predicting outcome in patients with invasive breast cancer", Am J Surg, 184, pp.337~340 (2002)[DOI]
  27. Rivers AK, "Clinicopathologic features associated with having four or more metastatic axillary nodes in breast cancer patients with a positive sentinel lymph node", Ann Surg Oncol, 13, pp.36~44 (2006)[DOI]
  28. Gill J, "Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: an analysis of the maximum number of nodes requiring excision", Breast J, 17, pp.3~8 (2011)[DOI]
  29. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG), "Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials", Lancet, 365, pp.1687~1717 (2005)[DOI]

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (39건)

Are We Predicting Disease Progress of the Rectal Cancer Patients without Surgery after Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy?윤성현, 오보영, 박윤아, 이우용, 허정욱, 전호경, 조용범, 김희철pp. 634-645Inter-alpha Inhibitor H4 as a Potential Biomarker Predicting the Treatment Outcomes in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma양승현, 김경진, 이은정, 전경희, 성진실, 차혜정, 이서진, 김지혜, 송준규pp. 646-657BCL2 Regulation according to Molecular Subtype of Breast Cancer by Analysis of The Cancer Genome Atlas Database김광수, 장지현, 정세희, 오소희, 최인실, 김영아, 이종윤, 황기태pp. 658-669Comparison of Native Escherichia coli L-Asparaginase versus Pegylated Asparaginase, in Combination with Ifosfamide, Methotrexate, Etoposide, and Prednisolone, in Extranodal NK/T-Cell Lymphoma, Nasal Type정선회, 이주연, 김일한, 허대석, 조윤숙, 김미소, 김범석, 김동완, 옥찬영, 김태민, 김현지, 이성희pp. 670-680Patient’s Cognitive Function and Attitudes towards Family Involvement in Cancer Treatment Decision Making: A Patient-Family Caregiver Dyadic Analysis권선성, Debra L. Roter, 신동욱, 양형국, 박종혁, 조주희, 김소영, 박기호, 강윤식, 이현우pp. 681-690
원문 보기