Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (8)
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sato, K.
Right arrow Articles by Mochizuki, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sato, K.
Right arrow Articles by Mochizuki, H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology 31:318-321 (2001)
© 2001 Foundation for Promotion of Cancer Research

Management of the Axilla in Breast Cancer: a Comparative Study Between Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy and Four-node Sampling Procedure

Kazuhiko Sato1, Kuniyoshi Tamaki1, Hideki Takeuchi1, Hitoshi Tsuda2, Shigeru Kosuda3, Shoichi Kusano3, Hoshio Hiraide4 and Hidetaka Mochizuki1,+

1Department of Surgery I, 2Department of Pathology II, 3Department of Radiology and 4Research Institute, National Defense Medical College, Tokorozawa, Saitama, Japan

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of sentinel lymph node biopsy and that of four-node sampling for predicting other nodal status in breast cancer.

Methods: 206 patients with operable breast cancer were enrolled. The identification of sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) was carried out in 110 patients using a gamma probe after injection of radioactive tin colloids. Four palpable lymph nodes (FNs) were removed from the lower axilla at the first step of axillary dissection in 98 patients. The predictive value of nodal status was compared between SLNs and FNs, based on the pathological findings of all dissected lymph nodes. To examine the relationship between SLNs and FNs, we chose the FNs retrospectively (defined as rFNs) from among all nodes in SLNs.

Results: SLNs were identified in 108 (98%) of 110 patients. With one patient having skip metastasis, the accuracy and sensitivity were 99 and 98%, respectively. In the four-node sampling (FNS) group, two in 98 patients had skip metastasis and the accuracy and sensitivity were 98 and 96%, respectively. Findings on the relationship between these methods of biopsy were as follows: (i) rFNs included SLNs in 79 patients (73%); (ii) rFNs partially included SLNs in 24 patients (22%); and (iii) no relationship was evident in five patients (5%).

Conclusions: The accuracy/sensitivity of FNs was comparable to that of SLNs. FNS can be considered to represent a highly promising approach and may be used as an alternative procedure that can be performed safely and easily in any institute.

+ For reprints and all correspondence: Kazuhiko Sato, Department of Surgery I, National Defense Medical College, 3–2 Namiki, Tokorozawa, Saitama 359-8513, Japan. E-mail: sato-k-a@mtg.biglobe.ne.jp


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.