Revista espanola de medicina nuclear e imagen molecular · 2015
Breast cancer lymphoscintigraphy: Factors associated with sentinel lymph node non visualization.
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.
Vaz S C, Silva Â, Sousa R, Ferreira T C, Esteves S, Carvalho I P, Ratão P, Daniel A, Salgado L
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate factors associated with non identification of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) in lymphoscintigraphy of breast cancer patients and analyze the relationship with SLN metastases.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A single-center, cross-sectional and retrospective study was performed. Forty patients with lymphoscintigraphy without sentinel lymph node identification (negative lymphoscintigraphy - NL) were enrolled. The control group included 184 patients with SLN identification (positive lymphoscintigraphy - PL). Evaluated factors were age, body mass index (BMI), tumor size, histology, localization, preoperative breast lesion hookwire (harpoon) marking and SLN metastases. The statistical analysis was performed with uni- and multivariate logistic regression models and matched-pairs analysis.
RESULTS: Age (p=0.036) or having BMI (p=0.047) were the only factors significantly associated with NL. Being ≥60 years with a BMI ≥30 increased the odds of having a NL 2 and 3.8 times, respectively. Marking with hookwire seems to increase the likelihood of NL, but demonstrated statistical significance is lacking (p=0.087). The other tested variables did not affect the examination result. When controlling for age, BMI and marking with the harpoon, a significant association between lymph node metastization and NL was not found (p=0.565).
CONCLUSIONS: The most important factors related with non identification of SLN in the patients were age, BMI and marking with hook wire. However, only the first two had statistical importance. When these variables were controlled, no association was found between NL and axillary metastases.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A single-center, cross-sectional and retrospective study was performed. Forty patients with lymphoscintigraphy without sentinel lymph node identification (negative lymphoscintigraphy - NL) were enrolled. The control group included 184 patients with SLN identification (positive lymphoscintigraphy - PL). Evaluated factors were age, body mass index (BMI), tumor size, histology, localization, preoperative breast lesion hookwire (harpoon) marking and SLN metastases. The statistical analysis was performed with uni- and multivariate logistic regression models and matched-pairs analysis.
RESULTS: Age (p=0.036) or having BMI (p=0.047) were the only factors significantly associated with NL. Being ≥60 years with a BMI ≥30 increased the odds of having a NL 2 and 3.8 times, respectively. Marking with hookwire seems to increase the likelihood of NL, but demonstrated statistical significance is lacking (p=0.087). The other tested variables did not affect the examination result. When controlling for age, BMI and marking with the harpoon, a significant association between lymph node metastization and NL was not found (p=0.565).
CONCLUSIONS: The most important factors related with non identification of SLN in the patients were age, BMI and marking with hook wire. However, only the first two had statistical importance. When these variables were controlled, no association was found between NL and axillary metastases.