Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A Prospective, Blinded Trial of Touch Prep Analysis versus Frozen Section for Intraoperative Evaluation of Sentinel Lymph Nodes in Breast Cancer

Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has largely replaced axillary dissection (ALND) for axillary staging in early breast cancer. However, intense pathologic evaluation is not routinely available intraoperatively; therefore, patients with SLN metastasis may require a second surgery for completion ALND. We hypothesized that a single-section approach (by either frozen section [FS] or touch preparation analysis [TPA]) could be accurate for intraoperative SLN evaluation.

Methods

We performed a prospective, blinded study of patients undergoing SLNB for breast cancer from September 2004 to July 2006. SLNs were bivalved along the long axis, underwent FS and TPA of the facing halves, followed by routine sentinel node processing (serial sectioning with hematoxylin/eosin staining). A single pathologist reviewed all study slides and was blinded to the permanent section interpretation.

Results

We analyzed 233 nodes from 118 patients. Overall, 21% of patients (N = 25) had SLN metastasis by serial-section histopathology. Single-section FS and TPA had similar sensitivities (0.67 and 0.66, P = .82) and specificities (0.995 and 0.995, P = 1.0) for detection of SLN metastasis, yielding equivalent accuracies (95%). All micrometastases (<2 mm; N = 4) were missed by both techniques. False positives were rare—only one in each group (2% overall).

Conclusion

Single-section TPA and FS have similar accuracies and can be safely used to identify the majority of patients with SLN metastasis, sparing these patients a delayed ALND. False-negative results from TPA or FS occur in patients with micrometastatic disease, for which the role of completion ALND remains controversial.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hutchinson JR, Chagpar AB, Scoggins CR, et al. Surgeon and community factors affecting breast cancer sentinel lymph node biopsy. Am J Surg 2005; 190:903–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lucci A Jr, Kelemen PR, Miller C 3rd, et al. National practice patterns of sentinel lymph node dissection for breast carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 2001; 192:453–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. McMasters KM, Tuttle TM, Carlson DJ, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer: a suitable alternative to routine axillary dissection in multi-institutional practice when optimal technique is used. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18:2560–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Davis KG, Schriver JP, Waddell B. Implementation of sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer by surgeons in the Department of Defense. Am J Surg 2002; 184:94–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Maggard MA, Lane KE, O’Connell JB, et al. Beyond the clinical trials: how often is sentinel lymph node biopsy performed for breast cancer? Ann Surg Oncol 2005; 12:41–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Conn CA, McMasters KM, Edwards MJ, et al. Acceptance of sentinel lymph node biopsy of the breast by all general surgeons in Kentucky. Breast J 2005; 11:231–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. NIH consensus conference. Treatment of early-stage breast cancer. JAMA 1991; 265:391–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Edge SB, Niland JC, Bookman MA, et al. Emergence of sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer as standard-of-care in academic comprehensive cancer centers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95:1514–21

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schwartz GF, Giuliano AE, Veronesi U. Proceedings of the consensus conference on the role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in carcinoma of the breast, April 19–22, 2001, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Cancer 2003; 94:2542–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. American Society of Breast Surgeons (October 2003). Consensus statement on guidelines for performance of sentinel lymphadenectomy for breast cancer. Available: http://www.breastsurgeons.org/officialstmts/sentinel.shtml [accessed: September 23, 2007]

  11. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Breast Cancer—v 2.2006. Available: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/breast.pdf [accessed: September 23, 2007]

  12. Singh-Ranger G, Mokbel K. The sentinel node biopsy is a new standard of care for patients with early breast cancer. Int J Fertil Womens Med 2004; 49:225–7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lyman GH, Giuliano AE, Somerfield MR, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:7703–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schrenk P, Rieger R, Shamiyeh A, et al. Morbidity following sentinel lymph node biopsy versus axillary lymph node dissection for patients with breast carcinoma. Cancer 2002; 88:608–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Peintinger F, Reitsamer R, Stranzl H, et al. Comparison of quality of life and arm complaints after axillary lymph node dissection vs sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer 2003; 89:648–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Schijven MP, Vingerhoets AJ, Rutten HJ, et al. Comparison of morbidity between axillary lymph node dissection and sentinel node biopsy. Eur J Surg Oncol 2003; 29:341–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Wilke LG, McCall LM, Posther KE, et al. Surgical complications associated with sentinel lymph node biopsy: results from a prospective international cooperative group trial. Ann Surg Oncol 2006; 13:491–500

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cody HS, Borgen PI, Tan LK. Redefining prognosis in node-negative breast cancer: can sentinel lymph node biopsy raise the threshold for systemic adjuvant therapy? Ann Surg Oncol 2004; 11:227S–30S

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dowlatshahi K, Fan M, Snider HC, et al. Lymph node micrometastases from breast carcinoma: reviewing the dilemma. Cancer 1997; 80:1188–97

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bonnema J, van de Velde CJ. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2002; 13:1531–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kane JM, Edge SB, Winston JS, et al. Intraoperative pathologic evaluation of a breast cancer sentinel lymph node biopsy as a determinant for synchronous axillary lymph node dissection. Ann of Surg Oncol 2001; 8:361–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Menes TS, Tartter PI, Mariachi H, et al. Touch preparation or frozen section for intraoperative detection of sentinel lymph node metastases from breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2003; 10:1166–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Shiver SA, Creager AJ, Shen P, et al. Intraoperative analysis of sentinel lymph nodes by imprint cytology for cancer of the breast. Am J Surg 2002; 184:424–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Henry-Tillman RS, Korourian S, Rubio IT, et al. Intraoperative touch preparation for sentinel lymph node biopsy: a 4-year experience. Ann Surg Oncol 2002; 9:333–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ratanawichitrasin A, Biscotti CV, Levy L, et al. Touch imprint cytological analysis of sentinel lymph nodes for breast carcinoma staging. Am J Clin Pathol 1999; 112:627–34

    Google Scholar 

  26. Van Diest PJ, Torrenga H, Borgstein PJ, et al. Reliability of intraoperative frozen section and imprint cytological investigation of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer. Histopath 1999; 35:14–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Galimberti V, et al. Sentinel-node biopsy to avoid axillary dissection in breast cancer with clinically negative lymph-nodes. Lancet 1997; 349:1864–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Viale G, Bosari S, Mazzarol G, et al. Intraoperative examination of axillary sentinel lymph nodes in breast carcinoma patients. Cancer 1999; 85:243–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Aihara T, Munakata S, Morino H, et al. Comparison of frozen section and touch imprint cytology for evaluation of sentinel lymph node metastasis in breast cancer. Ann Surg Onc 2004; 11:747–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Motomura K, Inaji H, Komoike Y, et al. Intraoperative sentinel lymph node examination by touch imprint cytology and frozen sectioning during breast surgery. BMJ 2000; 87:597–601

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Hughs SJ, Xi L, Raja S, et al. A rapid, fully automated, molecular-based assay accurately analyzes sentinel lymph nodes for the presence of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Surg 2006; 243:389–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Tsujimoto M, Nakabayashi K, Yoshidome K, et al. One-step nucleic acid amplification for intraoperative detection of lymph node metastasis in breast cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 2007; 13:4807–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Bold RJ, Schleiman M, Fahy BN. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2001; 16:347–57

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al. AJCC cancer staging manual. 6th ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mullenix PS, Carter PL, Martin MJ, et al. Predictive value of intraoperative touch preparation analysis of sentinel lymph nodes for axillary metastasis in breast cancer. Am J Surg 2003; 185:420–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Karamlou T, Johnson NM, Chan B, et al. Accuracy of intraoperative touch imprint cytologic analysis of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer. Am J Surg 2003; 185:425–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Zgajnar J, Frkovic-Grazio S, Besic N, et al. Low sensitivity of the touch imprint cytology of the sentinel lymph node in breast cancer patients—results of a large series. J Surg Oncol 2004; 85:82–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Pugliese MS, Tickman R, Wang NP, et al. The utility of intraoperative evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2007; 14:1024–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Genta F, Zannon E, Camanni M, et al. Cost/Accuracy ratio analysis in breast cancer patients undergoing ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology, sentinel node biopsy, and frozen section of node. World J Surg 2007; 31:1155–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Houvenaeghel G, Nos C, Mignotte H, et al. Micrometastases in sentinel lymph node in a multicentric study: predictive factors of nonsentinel lymph node involvement–Groupe des Chirurgiens de la Federation des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24:1814–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Van Zee KJ, Manasseh DM, Bevilacqua JL, et al. A nomogram for predicting the likelihood of additional nodal metastases in breast cancer patients with a positive sentinel node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 2003; 10:1140–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Cserni G. Comparison of different validation studies on the use of the Memorial-Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram predicting nonsentinel node involvement in sentinel node-positive breast cancer patients. Am J Surg 2006; 192:484–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Park J, Fey JV, Naik AM, et al. A declining rate of completion axillary dissection in sentinel lymph node-positive breast cancer patients is associated with the use of a multivariate nomogram. Ann Surg 2007; 245:462–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard J. Bold MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vanderveen, K.A., Ramsamooj, R. & Bold, R.J. A Prospective, Blinded Trial of Touch Prep Analysis versus Frozen Section for Intraoperative Evaluation of Sentinel Lymph Nodes in Breast Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 15, 2006–2011 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-008-9944-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-008-9944-8

Keywords

Navigation