J. Kollias et al., Clinical and histological factors associated with sentinel node identification in breast cancer, AUST NZ J S, 70(7), 2000, pp. 485-489
Background: Although sentinel lymph node biopsy is likely to be offered as
a method of assessing nodal status in primary breast cancer, the inability
to identify the sentinel nude at the time of surgery will limit the number
of patients who may benefit from the procedure. The pul pose of the present
study was to identify factors that are associated with intraoperative iden
tification of the sentinel node(s).
Methods: Between September 1995 and May 1999, lymphatic mapping using a com
bination of preoperative lymphoscintigraphy and/or blue dye was performed o
n 169 consecutive patients with clinically lymph node-negative primary oper
able breast cancer. Clinical and histological factors were assessed using u
nivariate and multivariate analysis to determine those that were associated
with intraoperative identification of the sentinel node,
Results: The sentinel node was identified at the time of surgery in 142 cas
es (84%). Of the clinical factors assessed, preoperative identification of
the sentinel node on lymphoscintigraphy (P < 0.0001), use of blue dye in co
mbination with isotope (P = 0.001), symptomatic palpable tumours (P < 0.05)
and the experience of the surgeon (P = 0.03) were significant in identifyi
ng the sentinel node at operation. No histological factor was associated wi
th intraoperative identification of the sentinel node. Using multivariate a
nalysis, positive identification of the sentinel node on lymphoscintigram,
the experience of the surgeon and the use of both blue dye and isotope For
sentinel node mapping were independent factors associated with intraoperati
ve sentinel node identification. The lymphoscintigram result was the strong
est independent factor according to its beta value, a measure of the weight
of significance.
Conclusion: Patients undergoing sentinel lymph node mapping and biopsy shou
ld be warned of the possibility of failure of sentinel node identification
at operation. Our results suggest that the best predictor of intraoperative
sentinel node identification is the visualization of the sentinel node on
preoperative lymphoscintigraphy. The result of the lymphoscintigram may all
ow for additional preoperative counselling of the patient regarding the suc
cess or failure of sentinel node biopsy. Technical factors such as the expe
rience and diligence of the surgeon, as well as the sentinel node mapping t
echnique, are also important in determining the success of the procedure.