RECENT FINDINGS: We performed a systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases to evaluate the impact of inguinal and pelvic LND on the oncological outcomes of PUC and to identify indications for this procedure.
RESULTS: Three studies met the inclusion criteria. The cancer detection rate in clinically nonpalpable inguinal lymph node (cN0) was 9% in men and 25% in women. In clinically palpable lymph node (cN+), the malignancy rate was 84% and 50% in men and women, respectively. Overall cancer detection rate in pelvic lymph nodes in patients with cN0 was 29%. Based on tumor stage, the detection rate was 11% in cT1-2 N0 and 37% in cT3-4 N0. Nodal disease was associated with higher recurrence and worse survival. Pelvic LND seems to improve overall survival for patients with LND regardless of the location or stage of lymph nodes. Inguinal LND improved overall survival only in patients with palpable lymph nodes. Inguinal LND had no survival benefit in patients with nonpalpable lymph nodes.
SUMMARY: The available, albeit scarce, data suggest that inguinal LND derives the highest benefit in women and in patients with palpable inguinal nodes, whereas the benefit of pelvic LND seems to be more pronounced across all stages of invasive PUC. Prospective studies are urgently needed to further address the prognostic benefit of locoregional LND in PUC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We sought to determine the prognostic role of the examined lymph node (LN), negative LN (NLN), and positive LN counts and the LN ratio (LNR), defined as (positive LNs/ENLs), on the survival rate among MBC patients. We performed a large population-based study using the data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program.
RESULTS: Older age, black race, stage IV disease, ≤ 1 NLN, and a > 31.3% LNR were significantly associated with worse survival across all prediction models. Moreover, we demonstrated a decreased risk of mortality in MBC patients across the MBC-specific survival model (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-0.998; P = .03) and 10-year MBC-specific survival model (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-0.999; P = .04).
CONCLUSION: MBC has had an augmented incidence over the years. We found several independent predictors of MBC survival, including age, race, stage, NLNs, and the LNR. We strongly suggest adding the NLN count and/or LNR into the current staging system. Further studies are needed to provide information on the mechanisms underlying the association between the NLN count and MBC survival and the LNR and MBC survival.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer were recruited. Combined radiotracer and blue dye methods were used for identification of SLNs. The nodes were thinly sliced and embedded. Serial sectioning and immunohistochemical (IHC) staining against AE1/AE3 were performed if initial HandE sections of the blocks were negative.
RESULTS: SLNs were successfully identified in all patients. Ten cases had nodal metastases with 7 detected in SLNs and 3 detected only in axillary nodes (false negative rate, FNR=30%). Some 5 out of 7 metastatic lesions in the SLNs (71.4%) were detected in initial sections of the thinly sliced tissue. Serial sectioning detected the remaining two cases with either micrometastases or isolated tumour cells (ITC).
CONCLUSIONS: Thin slicing of tissue to 3-5mm thickness and serial sectioning improved the detection of micro and macro-metastases but the additional burden of serial sectioning gave low yield of micrometastases or ITC and may not be cost effective. IHC validation did not further increase sensitivity of detection. Therefore its use should only be limited to confirmation of suspicious lesions. False negative cases where SLNs were not involved could be due to skipped metastases to non-sentinel nodes or poor technique during procurement, resulting in missed detection of actual SLNs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients with primary breast cancer and core biopsy proven metastatic ALNs, that had an excellent nodal radiological response following NACT, treated at our centre between January 2016 and December 2018. The initial cohort of patients (Group 1) underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), with a minimum of three nodes were sampled. The subsequent cohort (Group 2) had a marker clip inserted in the metastatic ALN prior to NACT. This cohort underwent wire guided excision of the clipped node in addition to SLNB, with a minimum of three nodes sampled.
RESULTS: A total of 47 patients were identified. Group 1 comprised 22 patients with a sentinel lymph node (SLN) identification rate (IR) of 95%. 25 patients (Group 2) underwent wire guided clip location and the SLN IR was 100% with a 92% clipped node IR. Evidence of pathological complete response (pCR) in the clipped node was associated with pCR in other nodes.
CONCLUSION: Targeted axillary dissection is a feasible technique following excellent response to NACT in selected patients with limited volume ALN metastasis, at diagnosis. The identification of the positive ALN during surgery is vital and the IR can be improved by clipping the node prior to NACT and wire guided localisation at the time of surgery.