Search

Well executed multicenter clinical trials often provide significant evidence and support for, or against, foundational aspects of clinical procedures perceived to improve clinical management of a medical condition. In this review, discussed are reports of multicenter clinical trials designed to investigate sentinel lymph node biopsy procedures in seven types of cancer: breast, melanoma, head and neck, gastric, colon, uterine, and vulvar-with focus on the most recent reports of the hypotheses, objectives, parameters, data, results, implications, and impacts of the included trials. Such trials generally enroll more subjects, in shorter time periods, than do single-center studies. Such studies generally also have greater diversities among investigator practitioners and investigative environments than do single-center studies. The greater number of subjects provides more power to statistical analyses performed in such studies. The more rapid accrual usually results in data being more consistently acquired. The diversities of practitioners and environments may produce results that are more conservative than might be obtained from more "focused" studies; however, diversities in a study often identify implicitly results that are more robust-that is results applicable by more practitioners and applicable in more environments., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Accurate staging of many cancers with no clinical evidence of lymph node involvement is often a critical component of the management of such cancers and is generally and historically accomplished by accurate pathological assessment of multiple nodes. Unfortunately, such assessment usually involves excision of the multiple nodes and can result in significant morbidities. Over the past half century, and particularly over the last quarter century, investigators have defined and refined the "sentinel lymph node(s)" concept and have developed and investigated sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) procedures. Such procedures are designed to stage cancers primarily via assessment of the sentinel nodes of the cancers and to do so with limited risk of morbidities. For some cancers (e.g., breast, melanoma, head and neck, penile), there are SLNB procedures that are used routinely. For other cancers, there are SLNB procedures being investigated that will yet prove successful and practical or successful but not practical or neither practical nor successful. In this review, SLNB procedures for breast, melanoma (adult and pediatric), head-and-neck, gastrointestinal (gastric, esophageal, colon), genitourinary (penile, prostate), and gynecological (uterine, cervical, vulvar, ovarian) cancers are discussed, including results of significant clinical trials performed using such in the management of these various cancers., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

It has been validated that sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) shows whether a patient's breast cancer or melanoma has spread to regional lymph nodes. As a result, management of patients with these cancers has been revolutionized. SLNB has replaced axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) as the staging modality of choice for early breast cancer and has replaced complete lymph node dissection as the staging modality of choice for melanoma in patients whose SLNBs indicate no metastases. Recently concluded multicenter, randomized trials for breast cancer with 5- to 10-y outcome data have shown no significant differences in disease-free survival rates or overall survival rates between SLNB and ALND groups but have shown significantly lower morbidity with SLNB than with ALND. The lowest false-negative rates (5.5%-6.7%) were seen in studies that used preoperative lymphoscintigraphy and dual mapping during surgery. To assess the survival impact of SLNB in melanoma, the Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial I was performed. Melanoma-specific survival rates were not different between subjects randomized to SLNB with lymphadenectomy for nodal metastasis on biopsy and subjects randomized to observation with lymphadenectomy for nodal relapse. However, the 10-y disease-free survival rates were better for the SLNB group than for the observation group, specifically among patients with intermediate-thickness melanomas or thick melanomas., (© 2015 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Inc.)

Purpose: The accurate harvesting of a sentinel node in breast cancer includes a sequence of procedures with components from different medical specialities, including nuclear medicine, radiology, surgical oncology and pathology. The aim of this document is to provide general information about sentinel lymph node detection in breast cancer patients., Methods: The Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) and the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) have written and approved these guidelines to promote the use of nuclear medicine procedures with high quality. The final result has been discussed by distinguished experts from the EANM Oncology Committee, the SNMMI and the European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO)., Conclusion: The present guidelines for nuclear medicine practitioners offer assistance in optimizing the diagnostic information from the SLN procedure. These guidelines describe protocols currently used routinely, but do not include all existing procedures. They should therefore not be taken as exclusive of other nuclear medicine modalities that can be used to obtain comparable results. It is important to remember that the resources and facilities available for patient care may vary.

Long-awaited results from randomized clinical trials designed to test the validity of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) as replacement of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in management of early breast cancer have recently been published. All the trials conclude SLNB has survival rates comparable to those of ALND (up to 10 years in one study) and conclude SLNB has less morbidity than ALND. All the trials support replacing ALND with SLNB for staging in early breast cancer; all support SLNB as the standard of care for such cancer. The SLNB protocols used in the trials varied, and no consensus that would suggest a standard protocol exists. The results of the trials and of other peer-reviewed research do, however, suggest a framework for including some specific methodologies in accepted practice. This article highlights the overall survival and disease-free survival data as reported from the clinical trials. This article also reviews the status of SLN procedures and the following: male breast cancer, the roles of various imaging modalities (single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography, positron emission tomography/computed tomography, and ultrasound), ductal carcinoma in situ, extra-axillary SLNs, SLNB after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, radiation exposure to patients and medical personnel, and a new radiotracer that is the first to label SLNs not by particle trapping but by specific macrophage receptor binding. The proper Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code for lymphoscintigraphy and SLN localization prior to surgery is 78195., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Sentinel lymph node biopsy is now the practice of choice for the management of many patients with breast cancer. This was not true in the early 1990s, when the first such procedures were performed and protocols for such were refined often. This was also not true in the first years of the 21st century, when a decade of collective experience and information acquired from numerous clinical investigations dictated additional subtle and not-so-subtle refinements of the procedures. However, it is true today; reports of the latest round of clinical investigations indicate that there are several breast cancer sentinel node procedures that result in successful identification of potential sentinel nodes in nearly all patients who are eligible for such procedures. A significant component of many of these successful sentinel node procedures is a detection and localization protocol that involves radiotracer methodologies, including radiopharmaceutical administration, preoperative nuclear medicine imaging, and intraoperative gamma counting. The present state and roles of nuclear medicine protocols used in breast cancer sentinel lymph node biopsy procedures is reviewed with emphasis on discussion of recent results, unresolved issues, and future considerations. Included are brief reviews of present radiotracer and blue-dye techniques for node localization, including remarks about injection strategies, counting probe technology, and radiation safety. Included also are discussions of on-going investigations of the implications of the presence of micrometastases; of the management value of detection, localization, and excision of extra-axillary nodes such as internal mammary nodes; and of the broad range of recurrence rates presently being reported. Remarks on the present and possible near- and long-term roles for nuclear medicine in the staging of breast cancer patients including comments on positron emission tomography and intraoperative imaging conclude the article.

Sentinel lymph node sampling has become an alternative to axillary lymph node dissection to provide prognostic and treatment information in breast cancer patients. The role of immunohistochemistry has yet to be established. A total of 241 sentinel lymph nodes (in 270 slides) from 91 patients with invasive carcinoma (73 ductal, 9 lobular, 8 mixed lobular/ductal, 1 NOS) were studied for presence of macrometastases (> 0.2 cm), identified in hematoxylin and eosin sections, and occult metastases (micrometastases [< or = 0.2 cm], clusters of cells, isolated carcinoma cells), identified only by immunohistochemistry. Intraoperative touch preparations, frozen sections, seven hematoxylin and eosin levels (L1-L7), and two AE1-3 cytokeratin immunohistochemistries (L1, L4-5) of the entire bisected or trisected sentinel lymph node were examined. Thirty-one (34%) patients had 50 positive sentinel lymph nodes. Twenty-six (33%) sentinel lymph nodes had metastatic carcinoma (11 macrometastases, 11 micrometastases, 3 clusters of cells, 1 isolated carcinoma cells) by touch preparations, frozen sections, and one hematoxylin and eosin (L1). Thirty-eight (43%) were positive by AE1-3 immunohistochemistry (L1) (11 macrometastases, 8 micrometastases, 13 clusters of cells, 6 isolated carcinoma cells), significantly more than by touch preparations, frozen sections, hematoxylin and eosin L1, or hematoxylin and eosin L2-7. Cytokeratin immunostain on L4-5 demonstrated 31 (34%) positive sentinel lymph nodes, a similar frequency to cytokeratin immunostain on L1. Size of sentinel lymph node metastasis did not correlate with size, histologic grade, or type of primary breast carcinoma. AE1-3 (L1) immunohistochemistry is highly sensitive in delineating sentinel lymph node metastasis, especially clusters of cells and isolated carcinoma cells. The prognostic significance of clusters of cells and isolated carcinoma cells and the value of AE1-3 immunohistochemistry on frozen sections need to be determined.