Anatomy and physiology of lymphatic drainage of the breast from the perspective of sentinel node biopsy

Abstract

Knowledge of the anatomy and physiology of the lymphatic system is helpful when considering a particular sentinel node biopsy technique. The delicate balance between internal and external pressures in a lymphatic channel can be influenced by the injection volume and by massage in a negative or positive way. The narrow openings in the interendothelial junctions determine the speed of clearance of particles with a certain size, and this has implications for the timing of lymphoscintigraphy and surgery. Tracer uptake and lymph flow are highly variable and depend on a number of factors, some of which are beyond our control. The lymphatic anatomy is not completely understood despite numerous studies since the end of the 18th century. Several topics have been elucidated in more recent studies and through experience with sentinel node biopsy. First, although axillary drainage is the principal lymphatic path of the breast, any drainage pattern from any quadrant of the breast can occur. Second, most lymph from the breast flows to the nodal basins with a direct course, not passing through the subareolar plexus. Another relevant point is that gentle massage encourages lymph flow and facilitates sentinel node detection. What problems do we still face in clinical practice? The optimum size and number of labeled colloid particles remain to be established. The optimum volume of the tracer also remains to be determined. But the main controversy concerns the injection site. Although the intradermal injection technique has attractive practical features, there is currently insufficient certainty that drainage of tracer injected anywhere in or underneath the skin of the breast reflects drainage from the cancer. Connections between collecting lymphatic vessels from the tumor site and the collecting vessels from the skin and subdermal lymphatics can explain the concordance between intraparenchymal and superficial injections in most patients. To determine the technique that yields the best sentinel node identification rate with the lowest possible false-negative rate would require a large randomized trial with all patients undergoing a complete lymph node dissection and evaluation of all other axillary lymph nodes with serial sections and immunohistochemistry. Current knowledge about sensitivity is based on examination of the other axillary nodes with hematoxylin and eosin staining and not with immunohistochemistry, with the exception of two studies. (33,76) In addition, a complete level I to III dissection may not have been done in all patients, and it is not certain that pathologists removed and examined all the nodes from the specimens. The proposed study seems impossible now that routine axillary node dissection has been abandoned by the larger centers around the world. Choosing the most attractive approach requires determining the aim of lymphatic mapping. A superficial injection technique may be adequate when the purpose is to spare patients without lymph node metastases in the axilla an unnecessary axillary node dissection. An intraparenchymal injection technique should be used when the additional purpose is to determine the stage as accurately as possible and to identify sentinel nodes elsewhere.