Sentinel node biopsy compared with complete axillary dissection for staging early breast cancer with clinically negative lymph nodes: Results of randomized trial

116Citations
Citations of this article
89Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Sentinel lymph node (SLN) staging is currently used to avoid complete axillary dissection in breast cancer patients with negative SLNs. Evidence of a similar efficacy, in terms of survival and regional control, of this strategy as compared with axillary resection is based on few clinical trials. In 1998, we started a randomized study comparing the two strategies, and we present here its results. Materials and methods: Patients were randomly assigned to sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and axillary dissection [axillary lymph node dissection (ALND arm)] or to SLNB plus axillary resection if SLNs contained metastases (SLNB arm). Main end points were overall survival (OS) and axillary recurrence. Results: One hundred and fifteen patientswere assigned to the ALND arm and 110 to the SLNB arm. A positive SLN was found in 27 patients in the ALND arm and in 31 in the SLNB arm. Overall accuracy of SLNB was 93.0%. Sensitivity and negative predictive values were 77.1% and 91.1%, respectively. At a median follow-up of 5.5 years, no axillary recurrence was observed in the SLNB arm. OS and event-free survival were not statistically different between the two arms. Conclusions: The SLNB procedure does not appear inferior to conventional ALND for the subset of patients here considered. © The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Canavese, G., Catturich, A., Vecchio, C., Tomei, D., Gipponi, M., Villa, G., … Dozin, B. (2009). Sentinel node biopsy compared with complete axillary dissection for staging early breast cancer with clinically negative lymph nodes: Results of randomized trial. Annals of Oncology, 20(6), 1001–1007. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdn746

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free