Comparative Analysis of Postoperative Complications of Sentinel Node Identification Using the SentiMag® Method and the Use of a Radiotracer in Patients with Breast Cancer
- PMID: 35621625
- PMCID: PMC9139760
- DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29050235
Comparative Analysis of Postoperative Complications of Sentinel Node Identification Using the SentiMag® Method and the Use of a Radiotracer in Patients with Breast Cancer
Abstract
(1) Background: The purpose of the study was a retrospective, comparative assessment of complications of the surgical sentinel node biopsy (SNB) procedure in breast cancer using the radiotracer method and the SentiMag® method on groups of patients after 3.5 years of use. (2) Methods: The material was a group of 345 patients with primary surgical breast cancer who underwent the SNB procedure with the use of a radiotracer in combination with wide local excision (WLE), simple amputation (SA) with SNB and an independent SNB procedure in the period from May 2018 to January 2021 in the Department of Oncological Surgery. Of the patients who were monitored in the Hospital Outpatient Clinic, 300 were enrolled. The analyzed group was compared in terms of the occurrence of the same complications with the group of 303 patients also operated on in our center in the period from January 2014 to September 2017, in which SN identification was performed using the SentiMag® method. (3) Results: The most common complications found were sensation disorders in the arm, which occurred in 16 (14.1%) patients using the radiotracer method, SentiMag®-11 (9.9%). By comparing the complication rate between the methods with the radiotracer (n = 300) and SentiMag® (n = 303), no significant differences were found. (4) Conclusions: Sentinel node (SN) identification using the radiotracer method and the SentiMag® method are comparable diagnostic methods in breast cancer, with a low risk of complications.
Keywords: SentiMag®; breast cancer; complications; sentinel lymph node biopsy; superparamagnetic particles of iron oxide.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Figures
References
-
- Veronesi U., Paganelli G., Viale G., Luini A., Zurrida S., Galimberti V., Intra M., Veronesi P., Robertson C., Maisonneuve P., et al. A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003;349:546–553. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa012782. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Lyman G.H., Temin S., Edge S.B., Newman L.A., Turner R.R., Weaver D.L., Benson A.B., 3rd, Bosserman L.D., Burstein H.J., Cody H., 3rd, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014;32:1365–1383. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.1177. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Giuliano A.E., Hunt K.K., Ballman K.V., Beitsch P.D., Whitworth P.W., Blumencranz P.W., Leitch A.M., Saha S., McCall L.M., Morrow M. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2011;305:569–575. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.90. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical