- Case report
- Open Access
Fallacies of preoperative lymphoscintigraphy in detecting sentinel node in breast cancer
© Pandey et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2005
- Received: 14 April 2005
- Accepted: 31 May 2005
- Published: 31 May 2005
Preoperative lymphoscintigraphy is one of the three methods of evaluating sentinel nodes in patients with breast cancer; however, it has been reported to have a high false negative rate.
We report here two cases where the preoperative lymphoscintigraphy was found to be fallacious. A 44-year-old female with T2N0 breast cancer underwent preoperative lymphoscintigraphy with Tc99 sulfur colloid which failed to show any uptake in axilla or internal mammary chain. Intraoperative scintigraphy with blue dye and hand held gamma probe identified sentinel lymph node in axilla. Another patient with T2N0 lesion underwent preoperative lymphoscintigraphy which showed a sentinel lymph node in axilla and another in supraclevicular fossa. Intraoperative scintigraphy failed to show supraclevicular node however axillary node was correctly identified.
These two cases further strengthen the need to carry out triple test in identification of sentinel lymph node in patients with breast cancer. It also demonstrates the fallacies of preoperative lymphoscintigraphy.
- Sentinel Node
- Axillary Dissection
- Node Negative Breast Cancer
- Infiltrate Duct Carcinoma
Metastasis to the axillary lymph node is the single most important prognostic factor in breast cancer. The therapeutic decisions are based on the axillary status. However, in recent past sentinel lymph node identification and biopsy (SLNB) is fast emerging as an alternate to axillary dissection as it avoids the complications of axillary dissection like lymphedema, pain, numbness and limitations of shoulder movements [1, 2]. SLNB has been found to be highly predictive of axillary lymph node status with false negative results of less than 5% [3–5]. A number of validity studies have been published however, the question of its oncological safety still awaits the results of randomized clinical trials [6, 7].
The sentinel lymph node identification is usually carried out by preoperative localization using Tc99 colloid and gamma camera or by intraoperative localization using hand held gamma probe or by dye technique. Majority of the centers use a combination of techniques and it has been reported that the triple method using all of the above gives the best results [8–10].
Non-visualization of sentinel node at preoperative scintigraphy is a continued problem. Between 3 to 30% of the nodes are reported to be non visualized most of which are subsequently picked up on intraoperative scintigraphy [11–13]. Several factors like age, size of the breast, presence of metastasis, has been proposed to influence the non-visualization [11–17]. We report here two unusual cases of non-visualization or abnormal visualization during preoperative lymphoscintigraphy; both of these cases were subsequently identified and biopsied intraoperatively using a combination of blue dye and hand held gamma probe.
A 44-year-old female presented with 2 months history of a progressive lump in right breast. She gave a past history of noncyclic mastalgia of two years duration. There was no other significant past history. Patient had undergone abdominal hysterectomy 4 years back for dysfunction uterine bleeding and was on hormone replacement therapy with estrogen alone for the same duration.
On examination there was 4 × 3 cm lump in upper outer quadrant of the right breast with no fixity to skin or underlying tissue. There were no significant axillary or supraclavicular nodes. Abdominal examination failed to show any organomegaly. Routine hematological, biochemical tests, chest roentgenogram, abdominal ultrasonogram and bone scans were normal. Fine needle aspiration cytology revealed Infiltrating duct carcinoma.
A 42-year-old female presented with lump in left breast of 1-month duration. She was a known case of carcinoma breast and had undergone right modified radical mastectomy 7 years back followed by chest wall radiotherapy and 6 cycles of CMF chemotherapy.
On examination there was a 3 × 2 cm lump located in the retro areolar area of left breast. Scar of right mastectomy was seen. There were no palpable axillary nodes or supra clavicular nodes. Systemic examination was normal. Routine hematological and biochemical investigations chest x-ray, abdominal sonography and bone scans were normal. The treatment options were discuss with the patient and she wanted to conserve this breast and hence a wide excision of mass encompassing nipple areola complex, sentinel node biopsy followed by axillary clearance was planned.
Histopathology of the resected specimen showed infiltrative duct carcinoma margins of resection were negative. The sentinel node showed deposits from infiltrating duct carcinoma. Post operative period was uneventful and it is planned to start her on radiotherapy to residual breast with 4 cycles of anthracyclin based chemotherapy.
The axillary dissection for axillary nodes from breast cancer is still the standard of care its routine use in node negative breast cancer has been questioned due to morbidity associated with the axillary dissection. SLNB has improved the morbidity in patients with node negative breast cancer, while providing the much needed prognostic information. Although these techniques have been successful, they are still evolving, and SLN biopsy is not yet considered the standard of care in breast cancer.
Preoperative visualization is one of the three methods commonly employed in detection of sentinel node. When radioactive colloid is used, a preoperative lymphoscintigram often is obtained to ease SLN identification further. This has been reported to have a false negative rate of 3–30% in various series [11–13]. Several factors like age, size of the breast, presence of metastasis, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, has been proposed to influence the non-visualization [11–19]. Other authors have found no significant predictor of non visualization . The non-visualization in our first case was due to superimposition of locally advance tumor in the outer quadrant and hence separation was not achieved on scintigraphy, while the erroneous supra clavicular node in the other was probably due to the spillage of radioactive material at the time of injection, which was subsequently washed off during the part preparation and hence no signal was obtained at intraoperative gamma probe assisted SLNB.
These two cases demonstrate the importance of using the triple technique to maximize the identification of SLN and improve the sensitivity and specificity of SLNB and fallacies of preoperative lymphoscintigraphy. This also raises a question that should preoperative scintigraphy should be carried out in all the cases?
Patient consent was obtained for publication of these case reports.
- Taylor KO: Morbidity associated with axillary surgery for breast cancer. ANZ J Surg. 2004, 74: 314-317. 10.1111/j.1445-1433.2004.02992.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Poole K, Fallowfield LJ: The psychological impact of post-operative arm morbidity following axillary surgery for breast cancer: a critical review. Breast. 2002, 11: 81-87. 10.1054/brst.2001.0369.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Galimberti V, Viale G, Zurrida S, Bedoni M, Costa A, De CC, Geraghty JG, Luini A, Sacchini V, Veronesi P: Sentinel-node biopsy to avoid axillary dissection in breast cancer with clinically negative lymph-nodes. Lancet. 1997, 349: 1864-1867. 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)01004-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Viale G, Galimberti V, Luini A, Zurrida S, Robertson C, Sacchini V, Veronesi P, Orvieto E, De CC, Intra M, Tosi G, Scarpa D: Sentinel lymph node biopsy and axillary dissection in breast cancer: results in a large series. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999, 91: 368-373. 10.1093/jnci/91.4.368.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Veronesi U, Galimberti V, Zurrida S, Pigatto F, Veronesi P, Robertson C, Paganelli G, Sciascia V, Viale G: Sentinel lymph node biopsy as an indicator for axillary dissection in early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2001, 37: 454-458. 10.1016/S0959-8049(00)00410-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mansel RE, Goyal A: European studies on breast lymphatic mapping. Semin Oncol. 2004, 31: 304-310.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Viale G, Luini A, Zurrida S, Galimberti V, Intra M, Veronesi P, Robertson C, Maisonneuve P, Renne G, De Cicco C, De Lucia F, Gennari R: A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003, 349: 546-553. 10.1056/NEJMoa012782.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Meyer-Rochow GY, Martin RC, Harman CR: Sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer: validation study and comparison of blue dye alone with triple modality localization. ANZ J Surg. 2003, 73: 815-818. 10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.02783.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rahusen FD, Pijpers R, van Diest PJ, Bleichrodt RP, Torrenga H, Meijer S: The implementation of the sentinel node biopsy as a routine procedure for patients with breast cancer. Surgery. 2000, 128: 6-12. 10.1067/msy.2000.107229.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Goyal A, Newcombe RG, Mansel RE, Chetty U, Ell P, Fallowfield L, Kissin M, Sibbering M: Role of routine preoperative lymphoscintigraphy in sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2005, 41: 238-243. 10.1016/j.ejca.2004.05.008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Birdwell RL, Smith KL, Betts BJ, Ikeda DM, Strauss HW, Jeffrey SS: Breast cancer: variables affecting sentinel lymph node visualization at preoperative lymphoscintigraphy. Radiology. 2001, 220: 47-53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Burak WEJ, Walker MJ, Yee LD, Kim JA, Saha S, Hinkle G, Olsen JO, Pozderac R, Farrar WB: Routine preoperative lymphoscintigraphy is not necessary prior to sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer. Am J Surg. 1999, 177: 445-449. 10.1016/S0002-9610(99)00088-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wu CT, Morita ET, Treseler PA, Esserman LJ, Hwang ES, Kuerer HM, Santos CL, Leong SP: Failure to harvest sentinel lymph nodes identified by preoperative lymphoscintigraphy in breast cancer patients. Breast J. 2003, 9: 86-90. 10.1046/j.1524-4741.2003.09205.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Haigh PI, Hansen NM, Giuliano AE, Edwards GK, Ye W, Glass EC: Factors affecting sentinel node localization during preoperative breast lymphoscintigraphy. J Nucl Med. 2000, 41: 1682-1688.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kern KA, Rosenberg RJ: Preoperative lymphoscintigraphy during lymphatic mapping for breast cancer: improved sentinel node imaging using subareolar injection of technetium 99m sulfur colloid. J Am Coll Surg. 2000, 191: 479-489. 10.1016/S1072-7515(00)00720-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- McMasters KM, Wong SL, Tuttle TM, Carlson DJ, Brown CM, Dirk NR, Glaser RL, Vennekotter DJ, Turk PS, Tate PS, Sardi A, Edwards MJ: Preoperative lymphoscintigraphy for breast cancer does not improve the ability to identify axillary sentinel lymph nodes. Ann Surg. 2000, 231: 724-731. 10.1097/00000658-200005000-00013.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mudun A, Aslay I, Aygen M, Muslumanoglu M, Bozfakioglu Y, Cantez S: Can preoperative lymphoscintigraphy be used as a guide in treatment planning of breast cancer?. Clin Nucl Med. 2001, 26: 405-411. 10.1097/00003072-200105000-00007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kang SH, Kim SK, Kwon Y, Kang HS, Kang JH, Ro J, Lee ES: Decreased identification rate of sentinel lymph node after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. World J Surg. 2004, 28: 1019-1024. 10.1007/s00268-004-7367-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Xing Y, Cormier JN, Kuerer HM, Hunt KK: Sentinel lymph node biopsy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy: review of the literature and recommendations for use in patient management. Asian J Surg. 2004, 27: 262-267.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rubello D, Zavagno G, Bozza F, Lise M, De Salvo GL, Saladini G, Mariani G, Casara D: Analysis of technical and clinical variables affecting sentinel node localization in patients with breast cancer after a single intradermal injection of 99mTc nanocolloidal albumin. Nucl Med Commun. 2004, 25: 1119-1124. 10.1097/00006231-200411000-00009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.