Skip to main content

Table 3 Sentinel node (s) identification rate and clinicopathological findings (all cases) (Dye n = 219, CTLG n = 221, Combination n = 219)

From: Clinical efficacy and problems with CT lymphography in identifying the sentinel node in breast cancer

 

Dye (+)(n = 202)

CTLG (+)(n = 212)

Combination (+)(n = 216)

Age, years

   

35

6(100%)

6(100%)

6(100%)

36~50

87(90%)

92(95%)

96(98%)

51

109(94%)

114(97%)

114(98%)

Menopausal state

   

Pre

103(92%)

108(96%)

105(98%)

Post

99(93%)

104(95%)

111(99%)

BMI

   

<25

160(95%) #

164(96%)

166(98%)

25

42(84%)

48(96%)

50(100%)

Tumor size, cm

   

2.0

183(92%)

193(96%)

197(99%)

2.1

19(100%)

19(100%)

19(100%)

With excisionary biopsy*

   

In lateral-upper region

17(89%)

18(95%)

19(100%)

In other regions

46(88%)

52(100%)

52(100%)

Histological type

   

IIa1

71(88%)

80(99%)

80(99%)

IIa2

22(100%)

23(100%)

22(100%)

IIa3

64(96%)

63(94%)

65(97%)

IIb3

8(89%)

8(89%)

9(100%)

DCIS

13(100%)

12(92%)

13(100%)

Others

24(89%)

26(93%)

27(100%)

Nodal status

   

n(-)

177(93%)

189(98%) #

191(100%) #

n(+)

25(89%)

23(82%)

25(89%)

Vascular invasion

   

v(-)

160(91%)

172(97%)

174(99%) #

v(+)

42(95%)

40(91%)

42(95%)

  1. BMI : Body mass index
  2. Dye : Dye-guided method
  3. CTLG : CT Lymphography
  4. Combination: Combination of CTLG and Dye
  5. #; P<0.05
  6. *; cases with excisional biopsy (n=71)