What is a false-negative result for sentinel node procedures in breast cancer?

2003 ◽  
Vol 82 (3) ◽  
pp. 141-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne H. Estourgie ◽  
Omgo E. Nieweg ◽  
Emiel J.T.H. Rutgers ◽  
Bin B.R. Kroon
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Sentinel Node ◽  
False Negative ◽  
False Negative Result

scholarly journals Risk Factors for a False-Negative Result of Sentinel Node Biopsy in Patients with Clinically Node-Negative Breast Cancer

2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 625-633 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seung Ah Lee ◽  
Hak Min Lee ◽  
Hak Woo Lee ◽  
Ban Seok Yang ◽  
Jong Tae Park ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Sentinel Node ◽  
Sentinel Node Biopsy ◽  
False Negative ◽  
False Negative Result ◽  
Node Negative ◽  
Node Biopsy ◽  
Node Negative Breast Cancer

False-negative rates in sentinel-node in breast cancer

The Lancet ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 354 (9180) ◽  
pp. 773-774 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Rozenberg ◽  
F Liebens ◽  
H Ham
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Sentinel Node ◽  
False Negative

A Multidisciplinary Approach to Locoregional Management of the Axilla for Primary Operable Breast Cancer

1997 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 491-499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin O. Anderson ◽  
Mary M. Austin-Seymour ◽  
Julie R. Gralow ◽  
Roger E. Moe ◽  
David R. Byrd
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Lymph Node ◽  
Sentinel Node ◽  
Axillary Dissection ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Cancer Prognosis ◽  
Blue Dye ◽  
Prognostic Information ◽  
Cancer Management ◽  
Axillary Lymphadenectomy

Background Lymph node metastasis is the single most important factor in assessing breast cancer prognosis and planning systemic therapy. However, lymph node dissection portends significant morbidity, with little or no therapeutic benefit if the nodes prove to be negative for cancer. Methods The authors review indications for avoiding axillary dissection, and they analyze the results from lower-level axillary lymphadenectomy together with the morbidity from full axillary dissection. Results Limited level I dissection depends on surgical technique and limits prognostic information. Three approaches have evolved to identify the sentinel node in breast cancer: perilesional breast injection of radiocolloid alone, blue dye alone, or a combination of radiocolloid and blue dye. These techniques provide high diagnostic accuracy, few false-negative results, and less morbidity. Conclusions Knowledge of axillary status is critical to current breast cancer management and cannot be foregone in the preponderance of patients with advanced breast cancer. Results from lymphatic mapping and sentinel node biopsy are highly encouraging.

Multicentric Breast Cancer: A New Indication for Sentinel Node Biopsy—A Multi-Institutional Validation Study

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (21) ◽  
pp. 3374-3380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Knauer ◽  
Peter Konstantiniuk ◽  
Anton Haid ◽  
Etienne Wenzl ◽  
Michaela Riegler-Keil ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Sentinel Node ◽  
False Negative ◽  
False Negative Rate ◽  
Breast Conserving Surgery ◽  
Axillary Lymph ◽  
Identification Rate ◽  
Multicentric Breast Cancer ◽  
Adequate Quality

Purpose Multicentric breast cancer has been considered to be a contraindication for sentinel node (SN) biopsy (SNB). In this prospective multi-institutional trial, SNB-feasibility and accuracy was evaluated in 142 patients with multicentric cancer from the Austrian Sentinel Node Study Group (ASNSG) and compared with data from 3,216 patients with unicentric cancer. Patients and Methods Between 1996 and 2004, 3,730 patients underwent SNB at 15 ASNSG-affiliated hospitals. Patient data were entered in a multicenter database. One hundred forty-two patients presented with multicentric invasive breast cancer and underwent SNB. Results Intraoperatively, a mean number of 1.67 SNs were excised (identification-rate, 91.5%). The incidence of SN metastases was 60.8% (79 of 130). This was confirmed by axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in 125 patients. Of patients with positive SNs, 60.8% (48 of 79) showed involvement of nonsentinel nodes (NSNs), as did three patients with negative SNs (false-negative rate, 4.0). Sensitivity, negative predictive value, and overall accuracy were 96.0%, 93.3%, and 97.3%, respectively. Ninety-one percent of the patients underwent mastectomy, and 9% were treated with breast conserving surgery. None of the patients have shown axillary recurrence so far (mean follow-up, 28.8 months). Compared with 3,216 patients with unicentric cancer, there was a significantly higher rate of SN metastases as well as in NSNs, whereas there was no difference in detection and false-negative rates. Conclusion Multicentric breast cancer is a new indication for SNB without routine ALND in controlled trials. Given adequate quality control and an interdisciplinary teamwork of surgical, nuclear medicine, and pathology units, SNB is both feasible and accurate in this disease entity.

False-negative rates in sentinel-node in breast cancer

The Lancet ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 354 (9180) ◽  
pp. 773 ◽  
Author(s):  
MRS Keshtgar ◽  
PJ Ell
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Sentinel Node ◽  
False Negative
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document