Sharp NE
,
Sachs DB
,
Melchior NM
,
Albaneze P
,
Nardello S
,
Sigurdson ER
,
Deng M
,
Aggon AA
,
Daly JM
,
Bleicher RJ
Does the false-negative rate for 1 or 2 negative sentinel nodes after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy translate into a high local recurrence rate?
Breast J. 2021 Mar 11
PMID:
33709448
Abstract
Prospective trials demonstrate that sentinel node (SN) biopsy after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has a significant false-negative rate (FNR) when only 1 or 2 SNs are removed. It is unknown whether this increased FNR correlates with an elevated risk of recurrence. Tumor Registry data at an NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center were reviewed from 2004 to 2018 for patients having a negative SN biopsy after NACT. Among 190 patients with histologically negative nodes after NACT having 1 (n = 42), 2 (n = 46), and ≥3 (n = 102) SNs, axillary recurrences occurred in 7.14%, 0%, and 1.96% (p = 0.09), breast recurrences occurred in 2.38%, 6.52%, and 0.98% (p = 0.12), and distance recurrences occurred in 16.67%, 8.70%, and 7.84% (p = 0.27), respectively. Time to first recurrence did not differ by SN count (p = 0.41). After adjustment for age, race, clinical stage, and receptor status, there were no differences in the rates of axillary (p = 0.26), breast (p = 0.44), or distance recurrence (p = 0.24) by numbers of SNs harvested. Median follow-up was 46.8 months. Despite higher post-NACT FNRs reported in randomized trials for patients having <3 sentinel nodes, recurrence rates were not significantly different for 1 versus 2 versus ≥3 SNs. This suggests that patients having 1 or 2 post-NACT SNs identified may not necessitate axillary dissection.
Notes
1524-4741
Sharp, Nicole E
Orcid: 0000-0001-8931-9672
Sachs, Darren B
Melchior, Nicole M
Albaneze, Philip
Nardello, Salvatore
Sigurdson, Elin R
Deng, Mengying
Aggon, Allison A
Daly, John M
Bleicher, Richard J
P30 CA 006927/United States Public Health Services/
Marlyn Fein Chapter of Fox Chase Cancer Center Board of Associates/
Journal Article
United States
Breast J. 2021 Mar 11. doi: 10.1111/tbj.14206.
|