Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Apr 14:12:869864.
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.869864. eCollection 2022.

Axillary Lymph Node Dissection Can Be Omitted in Breast Cancer Patients With Mastectomy and False-Negative Frozen Section in Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy

Jing Si  1   2 , Rong Guo  3 , Huan Pan  4 , Xiang Lu  1 , Zhiqin Guo  5 , Chao Han  1 , Li Xue  1 , Dan Xing  1 , Wanxin Wu  5 , Caiping Chen  1   2
Affiliations

Axillary Lymph Node Dissection Can Be Omitted in Breast Cancer Patients With Mastectomy and False-Negative Frozen Section in Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy

Jing Si et al. Front Oncol. .

Abstract

Background: The IBCSG 23-01 and AMAROS trials both reported that axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) did not change survival rates in breast cancer patients with positive nodes detected by sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). The aim of this study was to determine whether breast cancer patients with mastectomy and false-negative frozen section (FS) in SLNB could forgo ALND.

Materials and methods: This was a retrospective study of cN0 patients diagnosed with primary invasive breast cancer treated by mastectomy and SLNB at our institute between January 2010 and December 2014. Patients with false-negative FS in SLNB were separated by the following management of axillary lymph node dissection in the non-ALND group (nonprocess or axillary radiation only) and ALND group (with or without radiation).

Results: A total of 212 patients were included, 86 and 126 patients in the non-ALND and ALND groups, respectively. The positive rate of non-sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) was 15.87% (20/126) in the ALND group. In multivariate analysis, we found that patients with larger tumor size (>2 cm) (OR, 1.989; p = 0.030) and multifocal lesions (OR, 3.542; p = 0.029) tended to receive ALND. The positivity of non-SLNs in the ALND group was associated with SLN macrometastasis (OR, 3.551; p = 0.043) and lymphovascular invasion (OR, 6.158; p = 0.003). Also, removing more SLNs (≥3) was related to negativity in non-SLNs (OR, 0.255; p = 0.016). After a median follow-up of 59.43 months, RFS and OS of the two groups were similar (p = 0.994 and 0.441). In subgroup analysis, we found that 97 patients who met the inclusive criteria of the IBCSG 23-01 trial had similar RFS and OS between the non-ALND and ALND groups (p = 0.856 and 0.298). The positive rate of non-SLNs was 9.62% (5/52). Also, in 174 patients who met the criteria of the AMAROS trial, RFS and OS in the non-ALND and ALND groups were similar (p = 0.930 and 0.616). The positive rate of non-SLNs was 18.27% (19/104).

Conclusion: ALND can be carefully omitted in selected breast cancer patients with mastectomy and false-negative FS in SLNB. SLNB is relatively sufficient in the IBCSG 23-01-eligible patients, and axillary radiation was an effective option in the AMAROS-eligible patients.

Keywords: axillary lymph node dissection; false-negative; frozen section; metastasis; sentinel lymph node biopsy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
RFS (A) and OS (B) between the non-ALND and ALND groups.
Figure 2
Figure 2
RFS (A) and OS (B) in patients who met the inclusive criteria of the IBCSG 23-01 trial.
Figure 3
Figure 3
RFS (A) and OS (B) in patients who met the inclusive criteria of the AMAROS trial.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Abraham J, Aft R, Agnese D, Allison K, et al. . Breast Cancer, Version 3.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw (2020) 18:452–78. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.0016 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Glechner A, Wockel A, Gartlehner G, Thaler K, Strobelberger M, Griebler U, et al. . Sentinel Lymph Node Dissection Only Versus Complete Axillary Lymph Node Dissection in Early Invasive Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Eur J Cancer (2013) 49:812–25. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.09.010 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Viale G, Luini A, Zurrida S, Galimberti V, et al. . A Randomized Comparison of Sentinel-Node Biopsy With Routine Axillary Dissection in Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med (2003) 349:546–53. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa012782 - DOI - PubMed
    1. van der Noordaa MEM, Vrancken Peeters M, Rutgers EJT. The Intraoperative Assessment of Sentinel Nodes - Standards and Controversies. Breast (2017) 34 Suppl 1:S64–9. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2017.06.031 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Layfield DM, Agrawal A, Roche H, Cutress RI. Intraoperative Assessment of Sentinel Lymph Nodes in Breast Cancer. Br J Surg (2011) 98:4–17. doi: 10.1002/bjs.7229 - DOI - PMC - PubMed