World journal of surgical oncology · 2024
Correlation between sentinel lymph node biopsy and non-sentinel lymph node metastasis in patients with cN0 breast carcinoma: comparison of invasive ductal carcinoma and invasive lobular carcinoma.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cipolla Calogero, Lupo Simona, Grassi Nello, Tutino Giuseppe, Greco Martina, Eleonora D'Agati, Gebbia Vittorio, Valerio Maria Rosaria
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Some studies have suggested that axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) can be avoided in women with cN0 breast cancer with 1-2 positive sentinel nodes (SLNs). However, these studies included only a few patients with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), so the validity of omitting ALDN in these patients remains controversial. This study compared the frequency of non-sentinel lymph nodes (non-SLNs) metastases in ILC and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC).
MATERIALS METHODS: Data relating to a total of 2583 patients with infiltrating breast carcinoma operated at our institution between 2012 and 2023 were retrospectively analyzed: 2242 (86.8%) with IDC and 341 (13.2%) with ILC. We compared the incidence of metastasis to SLNs and non-SLNs between the ILC and IDC cohorts and examined factors that influenced non-SLNs metastasis.
RESULTS: SLN biopsies were performed in 315 patients with ILC and 2018 patients with IDC. Metastases to the SLNs were found in 78/315 (24.8%) patients with ILC and in 460 (22.8%) patients with IDC (p = 0.31). The incidence of metastases to non-SLNs was significantly higher (p = 0.02) in ILC (52/78-66.7%) compared to IDC (207/460 - 45%). Multivariate analysis showed that ILC was the most influential predictive factor in predicting the presence of metastasis to non-SLNs.
CONCLUSIONS: ILC cases have more non-SLNs metastases than IDC cases in SLN-positive patients. The ILC is essential for predicting non-SLN positivity in macro-metastases in the SLN. The option of omitting ALND in patients with ILC with 1-2 positive SLNs still requires further investigation.
MATERIALS METHODS: Data relating to a total of 2583 patients with infiltrating breast carcinoma operated at our institution between 2012 and 2023 were retrospectively analyzed: 2242 (86.8%) with IDC and 341 (13.2%) with ILC. We compared the incidence of metastasis to SLNs and non-SLNs between the ILC and IDC cohorts and examined factors that influenced non-SLNs metastasis.
RESULTS: SLN biopsies were performed in 315 patients with ILC and 2018 patients with IDC. Metastases to the SLNs were found in 78/315 (24.8%) patients with ILC and in 460 (22.8%) patients with IDC (p = 0.31). The incidence of metastases to non-SLNs was significantly higher (p = 0.02) in ILC (52/78-66.7%) compared to IDC (207/460 - 45%). Multivariate analysis showed that ILC was the most influential predictive factor in predicting the presence of metastasis to non-SLNs.
CONCLUSIONS: ILC cases have more non-SLNs metastases than IDC cases in SLN-positive patients. The ILC is essential for predicting non-SLN positivity in macro-metastases in the SLN. The option of omitting ALND in patients with ILC with 1-2 positive SLNs still requires further investigation.