早期乳腺癌腋窝前哨淋巴结阳性患者腋窝非前哨淋巴结转移风险预测

目的 分析前哨淋巴结活检(SLNB)1~2个阳性乳腺癌患者中非前哨淋巴结(NSLN)转移的影响因素并构建预测模型。方法 回顾分析2008-2014年中国医学科学院北京协和医学院肿瘤医院未行新辅助化疗前哨淋巴结 1~2个阳性并行腋窝淋巴结清扫的乳腺癌患者的临床病理因素。计数资料组间比较采用χ²检验,多因素分析采用Logistic回归模型。以AUC值和校正曲线对Nomogram预测模型进行评估。结果 共 270例患者纳入研究,87例(32.2%)存在NSLN转移。中位年龄46(21~80)岁,中位SLN送检个数4(1~10)个,中位腋窝淋巴结清扫个数20(10~41)个。单因素分析结果显示病理分级、SLN宏转移、阳性SLN个数和阴性SLN个数是腋窝NSLN转移的影响因素(P=0.001~0.045)。多因素分析结果显示病理分级、阳性SLN个数和阴性SLN个数是NSLN转移的独立影响因素(P=0.000~0.041)。乳腺癌NSLN转移Nomogram预测模型AUC=0.70,当预测患者的NSLN转移率≤15%时,假阴性率仅为10.5%。结论 Nomogram预测模型可作为临床医师进行腋窝处理时的决策参考,对于NSLN转移概率低的患者可以避免行腋窝淋巴结清扫或腋窝放疗。     

前哨淋巴结活检在早期乳腺癌患者腋窝管理中的研究进展

传统的观点认为腋窝淋巴结清扫(axillary lymph node dissection,ALND)是前哨淋巴结(sentinellymph node,SLN)阳性乳腺癌患者的标准治疗方法,而ALND容易引起上肢水肿、功能障碍等术后并发症,影响患者生活质量.近几年研究显示,对于SLN阳性的早期乳腺癌,并非所有患者都需...     

前哨淋巴结活检指导乳腺癌腋窝淋巴结清扫的研究进展

腋窝淋巴结清扫（axillary lymph node dissection,ALND）对降低乳腺癌患者的复发转移率、延长乳腺癌患者生存期具有重要意义,临床上绝大部分前哨淋巴结活检（sentinel lymph node biopsy,SLNB）结果阳性的乳腺癌患者均接受ALND。但现有研究显示,部分前哨淋巴结阳性的乳腺癌患者并没有因ALND而取得生存获益,这就引发了对于SLNB阳性的乳腺癌患者是否必须行ALND问题的思考。本文就近年来SLNB指导乳腺癌患者ALND相关研究的新进展进行综述。     

早期乳腺癌前哨淋巴结阳性患者腋窝管理方式的研究进展

乳腺癌的发病率居女性肿瘤之首,近年来随着诊断技术的发展及相关知识的普及,早期乳腺癌的检出率大大增加。淋巴结转移为乳腺癌最常见的转移方式,前哨淋巴结活检广泛用于术中评估肿瘤是否侵犯腋窝淋巴结。近年来有多项探讨关于前哨淋巴结局限阳性患者最佳腋窝管理方式的研究,引起较大争议,国内外临床处理的方式也不尽相同。本文将对前哨淋巴结阳性患者腋窝管理方式的最新研究进展作一综述。     

前哨淋巴结1~2个阳性早期乳腺癌患者腋窝淋巴结管理办法研究进展

前哨淋巴结活检术是临床腋窝阴性乳腺癌患者的标准治疗方法。前哨淋巴结阴性患者可省略腋窝清扫手术,而前哨淋巴结 1~2个阳性患者腋窝最佳治疗手段却存在争议。本文总结了前哨淋巴结 1~2个阳性的早期乳腺癌患者腋窝管理模式的最新进展。     

乳腺癌伴1～2枚前哨淋巴结转移腋窝外科处理的研究进展

摘 要：乳腺癌腋窝手术对确立临床分期、辅助治疗选择及预后判断均有重要价值。临床淋巴结阴性的乳腺癌,应用前哨淋巴结活检（SLNB）确定腋窝淋巴结分期已成为标准。对于前哨淋巴结（SLN）阴性的乳腺癌,腋窝淋巴结清扫（ALND）可以避免;而对于SLN阳性的乳腺癌,ALND仍是标准的腋窝处理方式。然而,在SLN阳性患者中进一步行ALND后发现,在仅1～2枚SLN阳性患者中,61.4%～64.5%非前哨淋巴结（nSLN）为阴性。已有大量的临床研究探索了特定条件下的1～2枚SLN阳性患者免除ALND的可行性与安全性。全文就乳腺癌伴1～2枚SLN转移腋窝外科处理的相关研究进行综述。     

1枚前哨淋巴结阳性早期乳腺癌保腋窝的可行性分析

目的探讨1枚前哨淋巴结（sentinel lymph node,SLN）阳性的早期乳腺癌患者保腋窝（omitting axillary dissection,OAD）的可行性。方法用美蓝作为示踪剂先行乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检术（sentinel lymph node biopsy,SLNB）,根据快速冰冻病理结果分为SLN阴性组与1枚SLN阳性组,随后两组均行常规腋窝淋巴结清扫（axillary lymph node dissection,ALND）以解剖出非前哨淋巴结（non—sentinellymphnode,NSLN）,比较两组间NSLN的阳性率。结果SLN阴性组30例,1例NSLN阳性,阳性率为3．3％,准确性为96．7％（29／30）;1枚SLN阳性组30例,仅3例NSLN阳性,阳性率为10．0％;两组阳性率差异无统计学意义（X^2=1．071,P=0．612）。全组随访1～48个月,均无区域淋巴结复发。结论1枚SLN阳性的早期乳腺癌患者可考虑OAD。     

前哨淋巴结活检术在早期乳腺癌保腋窝治疗中的应用

目的：探讨乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检术（sentonel lymph node biopsy,SLNB）对SLN阴性者进行保腋窝的可行性。方法：联合应用专利蓝（patent blue-v）和^99mTc标记的硫胶体（^99mTc-Sulphur colloid,^99mTc-Sc）行乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检术。对SLN阴性并同意保腋窝者免除腋窝淋巴结清扫（axillary lymph node dissection,ALND）,对SLN阳性或虽SLN阴性但不同意保腋窝者仍行ALND。结果：2002年3月～2006年3月入组临床分期T1～2N0M0乳腺癌患者135例,均行SLNB。SLN阳性44例,其中42例行ALND,2例镜下有微小转移灶者仅行SLNB术后加腋窝淋巴结区域放疗;SLN阴性91例（67.4%）,其中的39例仅行SLNB,52例仍行ALND。全组SLNB准确率97.8%（132/135）,假阴性率6.8%（3/44）。全组中位随访43个月（24～72个月）,SLNB保腋窝者术后并发症明显低于ALND者（P〈0.05）,区域淋巴结无复发,ALND者区域淋巴结亦无复发。结论：SLNB保腋窝近期疗效满意具有良好的微创效果。     

早期乳腺癌中前哨淋巴结导航的淋巴结群切除的价值

[目的]比较腋窝前哨淋巴结（SLN）导航的淋巴结群切除与单纯前哨淋巴结活检（SLNB）的优劣,探讨其作为早期乳腺癌外科腋窝处理手段的可行性及临床意义。[方法]2003年10月至2009年5月．连续入组305例早期乳腺癌手术病例,术中序贯施行腋窝SLNB、SLN所在淋巴结群切除及全腋窝淋巴结清扫（ALND）,比较SLNB与SLN导航的淋巴结群切除活检预测腋淋巴结状态的差异并分析影响淋巴结状态的因素。[结果]SLNB成功率为99.34％（303／305）。SLNB假阴性10例,SLNB预测淋巴结状态假阴性率为9．80％（10／102）、敏感性90．20％（92／102）、准确性96．70％（293,303）、阴性似然比0．098。SLN导航的淋巴结群切除活检预测腋淋巴结状态的假阴性率为1．96％（2／102）、敏感性98．04％（100／102）、准确性99．34％（301／303）、阴性似然比0．020。淋巴结状态与肿瘤大小、脉管浸润、组织学分级及Her-2状态相关（P〈0．05）。[结论]以腋窝SLN导航的淋巴结群切除替代ALND治疗早期乳腺癌较单纯SLNB更具安全性及应用价值。结合肿瘤大小、脉管浸润、组织学分级及Her-2状态有助于更准确地指导腋窝淋巴结处理方式.     

乳腺癌保乳术后全乳逆向IMRT对腋窝Ⅰ—Ⅲ站及前哨淋巴结剂量覆盖评估

目的 评估早期乳腺癌保乳术后全乳逆向IMRT对腋窝Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ站及前哨淋巴结区域的剂量覆盖情况。方法 回顾分析2008—2012年间在复旦大学附属肿瘤医院接受保乳手术及前哨淋巴结活检术的40例乳腺癌患者临床资料。术后全乳逆向IMRT处方剂量为50 Gy分25次。按照RTOG标准及术中放置钛夹的位置勾画腋窝Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ站及前哨淋巴结区域,并分析相应区域受量。结果 腋窝Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ站淋巴结的平均剂量分别为(33.0±7.5)、(17.9±11.3)、(7.3±6.6) Gy,V₉₅分别为(29.9±17.7)%、(9.0±14.5)%、(0.1±0.3)%。所有前哨淋巴结均位于第Ⅰ站腋窝淋巴结区域,前哨淋巴结的平均剂量为(43.0±10.0) Gy,58%(19/33)的平均剂量>45 Gy。结论 采用逆向IMRT照射乳腺时,腋窝Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ站淋巴结受量有限,对前哨淋巴结微转移且未清扫腋窝者应充分考虑这一因素。     

临床腋窝淋巴结阳性乳腺癌患者内乳区前哨淋巴结活检术研究*

目的：评估临床腋窝淋巴结阳性乳腺癌患者行内乳区前哨淋巴结活检术（IM-SLNB）的临床意义。方法：2013年6 月至2014年10月对山东省肿瘤医院乳腺病中心就诊的64例临床腋窝淋巴结阳性的原发性乳腺癌患者行前瞻性单臂入组研究,采取腋窝淋巴结清扫术,同时均应用新的核素注射技术进行IM-SLNB。结果：64例患者中内乳区前哨淋巴结（IM-SLN）显像为38例,显像率为59.4%（38/ 64）。 38例IM-SLN 显像患者中IM-SLNB 成功率为100%（38/ 38）,并发症发生率为7.9%（3/ 38）,IM-SLN 转移率为21.1%（8/ 38）。 肿瘤位于内上象限和腋窝淋巴结转移数目较多的患者,其IM-SLN 转移率较高（P < 0.001 和P = 0.017）。 患者临床获益率为59.4%（38/ 64）,其中12.5%（8/ 64）另接受了内乳区放疗、46.9%（30/ 64）避免了不必要的内乳区放疗。结论：临床腋窝淋巴结阳性的乳腺癌应进行IM-SLNB,尤其对于肿瘤位于内上象限及怀疑存在较多腋窝淋巴结转移数目的患者,以获得内乳区淋巴结的转移状态,指导乳腺癌患者内乳区放疗。     

乳腺癌SLN阳性与残余腋淋巴结阳性的预测因素

目的明确前哨淋巴结(SLN)阳性乳腺癌中不同的临床病理特点,并确定非SLN(NSLN)发生转移的预测因素。方法回顾分析726例成功确定了SLN的0~Ⅱ期乳腺癌病例,SLN阳性的185例患者接受腋窝淋巴结清除(ALND)。根据NSLN有无转移,将该185例分为两组,残余腋窝淋巴结有转移组(NSLN )81例,残余腋窝淋巴结无转移组(NSLN-)104例。结果多变量分析显示,原发肿瘤较大(>2.0cm)、淋巴管浸润、阳性SLN较大(>2mm)、所获得的SLN全部阳性4项均与NSLN阳性相关。在4项因素均存在的病例中,73%(30/41)存在NSLN阳性。结论4项独立的预测因素与NSLN转移有关。     

Low locoregional failure rates in selected breast cancer patients with tumor-positive sentinel lymph nodes who do not undergo completion axillary dissection

BACKGROUND: The role for completion axillary dissection (CLND) in patients with breast cancer who have tumor-positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) has been questioned. The objective of this study was to examine the long-term safety of avoiding CLND in selected patients with positive SLNs. METHODS: Patients with invasive breast cancer who underwent SLN biopsy at the authors' institution between 1993 and July 2005 were reviewed. Of 3366 total patients, 750 patients had a positive SLN. There were 196 patients with a positive SLN who did not undergo CLND based on clinician and patient preference. Clinicopathologic variables and treatment patterns were analyzed along with locoregional, distant recurrence, and survival. RESULTS: Most tumors were infiltrating ductal carcinomas (74%), estrogen receptor-positive tumors (82%), progesterone receptor-positive tumors (70%), HER-2/neu-negative tumors (78.6%), and tumors were classified predominantly as either T1 or T2 (95.4%). The median number of SLNs removed was 3, and the median number of positive SLNs was 1. The median size of the tumor deposit in the SLN was 1.0 mm (range, 0.1-12.9 mm). Most SLNs were positive by on hematoxylin and eosin staining (64.3%), whereas 35.7% of SLNs were positive only by immunohistochemistry. Most patients underwent breast conservation (68.9%), radiation (58.2%), and chemotherapy (neoadjuvant in 14.3%, adjuvant in 55.6%). With a median follow-up of 29.5 months, no patients had an axillary recurrence, 1 patient had a supraclavicular lymph node recurrence, and 3 patients developed distant metastases. The median time to recurrence was 32 months. CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients who had positive SLNs, the locoregional failure rate was low without CLND. Prospective studies will be valuable to corroborate these results and to refine further the optimal selection criteria for this approach.     

Histopathologic examination of axillary sentinel lymph nodes in breast carcinoma patients

The axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has gained increasing popularity as a novel surgical approach for staging patients with breast carcinoma and for guiding the choice of adjuvant therapy with minimal morbidity. Patients with negative SLNB represent a subset of breast carcinoma patients with definitely better prognosis, because their pN0 status is based on a very thorough examination of the sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs), with a very low risk of missing even small micrometastatic deposits, as compared with routine examination of the 20 or 30 lymph nodes obtained by the traditional axillary clearing. The histopathologic examination of the SLNs may be performed after fixation and embedding in paraffin, or intraoperatively on frozen sections. Whatever is the preferred tracing technique and surgical procedure, the histopathologic examination of each SLN must be particularly accurate, to avoid a false-negative diagnosis. Unfortunately, because of the lack of standardised guidelines or protocols for SLN examination, different institutions still adopt their own working protocols, which differ substantially in the number of sections cut and examined, in the cutting intervals (ranging from 50 to more than 250 microm), and in the more or less extensive use of immunohistochemical assays for the detection of micrometastatic disease. Herein, a very stringent protocol for the examination of the axillary SLN is reported, which is applied either to frozen SLN for the intraoperative diagnosis, and to fixed and embedded SLN as well.     

Management of the axilla in patients with breast cancer and positive sentinel lymph node biopsy: An evidence-based update in a European breast center

The surgical approach to the axilla in breast cancer has been a controversial issue for more than three decades. Data from recently published trials have provided practice-changing recommendations in this scenario. However, further controversies have been triggered in the surgical community, resulting in heterogeneous diffusion of these recommendations.The development of clinical guidelines for the management of the axilla in patients with breast cancer is a work in progress. A multidisciplinary team discussion was held at the research hospital Policlinico San Matteo from the Università degli Studi di Pavia with the aim to update recommendations for the management of the axilla in patients with breast cancer. An evidence-based approach is presented.Our multidisciplinary panel determined that axillary dissection after a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy may be avoided in cN0 patients with micro/macrometastasis to ≤2 sentinel nodes, with age ≥40y, lesions ≤3 cm, who have not received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and have planned breast conservation (BCS) with whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT). Cases with gross (>2 mm) ECE in SLNs are evaluated on individual basis for completion ALND, axillary radiotherapy or omission of both. Patients fulfilling the criteria listed above who undergo mastectomy, may also avoid axillary dissection after multidisciplinary discussion of individual cases for consideration of axillary irradiation. Women 70 years or older with hormone receptors positive invasive lesions ≤3 cm, clinically negative nodes, and serious or multiple comorbidities who undergo BCS with WBRT, may forgo axillary staging/surgery (if mastectomy or larger tumor, comorbidities and life expectancy are taken into account).     

Different criteria for radioactive sentinel lymph nodes has different impact on sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study set out to determine the impact of different criteria for radioactive sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) on sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), and the optimal criteria for radioactive SLNs. METHODS: Eighty-four breast cancer patients with cT1-2N0M0 were studied prospectively. Filtered technetium 99 m sulfur colloid was injected in peritumor parenchyma. Three different definitions of SLNs were adopted in each patient: (1) the lymph node with the highest radioactivity. (2) Any lymph node with an in vivo hot spot-to-background activity ratio of at least 3:1 or an ex vivo SLN-to-non-SLN ratio of at least 10:1. (3) All radioactive hot nodes. RESULTS: With three different definitions, the success rate of sentinel node biopsy were all 96.4%, the sensitivity was 78.9%, 92.1%, 97.4% respectively; false negative rate 21.1%, 7.9%, 2.6% respectively; predicting accuracy 90.1%, 96.3%, 98.8% respectively (P < 0.05). The first, the first two, the first three, and the first four highest radioactive sentinel nodes identified 81.1%, 89.2%, 94.6%, 100% of the positive-SLN patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The different criteria for radioactive SLNs had different impact on the accuracy, sensitivity, and false negative rate, but not on the success rate, during sentinel node biopsy using radioactive sulfur colloid in breast cancer patients. The first four highest radioactive sentinel nodes could accurately predict the status of axillary metastases. J. Surg. Oncol. 2007;95:635-639. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Radiation field design and regional control in sentinel lymph node-positive breast cancer patients with omission of axillary dissection

BACKGROUND:

Randomized data suggest that axillary clearance is not necessary in select, clinically lymph node‐negative women with positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsies (SLNBs) who undergo breast‐conserving surgery or receive whole‐breast radiotherapy and systemic therapy. The additional value of axillary radiotherapy in these patients is unknown.

METHODS:

The authors identified 326 patients with positive SLNBs who underwent breast‐conserving surgery without axillary lymph node dissection from 1997 to 2009. SLN tumor deposits measured ≤0.2 mm in 58% of patients, 0.3 to 2.0 mm in 35% of patients, and >2 mm in 7% Patients. Ninety‐three percent of patients received adjuvant radiotherapy. Radiation fields were categorized as standard tangents, high tangents, comprehensive (tangents plus supraclavicular), or partial breast to reflect coverage of the axilla. Standard tangents included both prone and supine positions. Regional failure was defined as recurrence in the ipsilateral supraclavicular, axillary, or internal mammary lymph nodes.

RESULTS:

The median follow‐up was 55 months (range, 1‐158 months). The 4‐year rates of regional control, local control, disease‐free survival, and overall survival were 99%, 98%, 95%, and 91%, respectively. Three patients had regional recurrences. Two of those patients received adjuvant radiotherapy with standard supine tangents, and 1 patient did not receive radiotherapy. No regional recurrences occurred among 66 patients who received radiotherapy in the prone position.

CONCLUSIONS:

Regional control was high (99% at 4 years) in patients who had low‐volume SLN disease who did not undergo axillary dissection, regardless of whether the axilla was irradiated. Whole‐breast radiation alone, including in the prone position, is sufficient treatment after breast‐conserving surgery for select patients with tumor‐containing SLNs who omit axillary dissection. Cancer 2012;. © 2011 American Cancer Society.