The Use of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Patients Undergoing Mastectomy for DCIS

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Morgan K. Johnson , Chandler S. Cortina , Mohammed Aldakkak , Chiang-Ching Huang , Amanda L. Kong
{"title":"The Use of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Patients Undergoing Mastectomy for DCIS","authors":"Morgan K. Johnson ,&nbsp;Chandler S. Cortina ,&nbsp;Mohammed Aldakkak ,&nbsp;Chiang-Ching Huang ,&nbsp;Amanda L. Kong","doi":"10.1016/j.clbc.2024.07.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Current guidelines do not recommend routine sentinel node biopsy (SLNB) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), except in the setting of mastectomy or microinvasive disease. This study aimed to evaluate national SLNB utilization in women undergoing upfront mastectomy for DCIS, identify predictors of SLNB utilization, and determine the percentage with a positive SLNB.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A retrospective cohort analysis was performed using the NCDB of women with clinical DCIS who underwent upfront mastectomy between 2012 and 2017. Demographic and clinicopathologic variables were compared between patients who underwent SLNB and those who did not. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with SLNB utilization and positive SLNB.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>About 38,973 patients met inclusion criteria: 34,231 (88%) underwent SLNB and 4742 (12%) had no surgical axillary staging. Most patients were age 50-69 (51%), non-Hispanic White (71%), with private insurance (66%). On multivariate analysis, older patients were less likely to receive SLNB (<em>P</em> &lt; .01), while patients with higher grade DCIS were more likely to undergo SLNB (<em>P</em> &lt; .01). In those who underwent SLNB (n = 34,231), only 1,149 (3.4%) had nodal involvement. Non-Hispanic Black patients had increased odds of a positive SLNB (<em>P</em> &lt; .01), while those with estrogen receptor positive disease were less likely to be node positive (OR 0.68, <em>P</em> &lt; .001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>While 88% of patients had a SLNB, only 3.4% were found to be node positive. Given this low rate, it is reasonable to consider SLNB omission in select patients with low grade, hormone receptor positive DCIS undergoing upfront mastectomy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10197,"journal":{"name":"Clinical breast cancer","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical breast cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S152682092400185X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Current guidelines do not recommend routine sentinel node biopsy (SLNB) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), except in the setting of mastectomy or microinvasive disease. This study aimed to evaluate national SLNB utilization in women undergoing upfront mastectomy for DCIS, identify predictors of SLNB utilization, and determine the percentage with a positive SLNB.

Methods

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed using the NCDB of women with clinical DCIS who underwent upfront mastectomy between 2012 and 2017. Demographic and clinicopathologic variables were compared between patients who underwent SLNB and those who did not. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with SLNB utilization and positive SLNB.

Results

About 38,973 patients met inclusion criteria: 34,231 (88%) underwent SLNB and 4742 (12%) had no surgical axillary staging. Most patients were age 50-69 (51%), non-Hispanic White (71%), with private insurance (66%). On multivariate analysis, older patients were less likely to receive SLNB (P < .01), while patients with higher grade DCIS were more likely to undergo SLNB (P < .01). In those who underwent SLNB (n = 34,231), only 1,149 (3.4%) had nodal involvement. Non-Hispanic Black patients had increased odds of a positive SLNB (P < .01), while those with estrogen receptor positive disease were less likely to be node positive (OR 0.68, P < .001).

Conclusions

While 88% of patients had a SLNB, only 3.4% were found to be node positive. Given this low rate, it is reasonable to consider SLNB omission in select patients with low grade, hormone receptor positive DCIS undergoing upfront mastectomy.

对因 DCIS 而接受乳房切除术的患者进行前哨淋巴结活检
背景目前的指南不建议对导管原位癌 (DCIS) 进行常规前哨节点活检 (SLNB),但乳房切除术或微小浸润性疾病除外。本研究旨在评估全国因 DCIS 而接受前期乳房切除术的女性的 SLNB 利用率,确定 SLNB 利用率的预测因素,并确定 SLNB 阳性的比例。方法利用 NCDB 对 2012 年至 2017 年期间接受前期乳房切除术的临床 DCIS 女性进行了回顾性队列分析。比较了接受 SLNB 和未接受 SLNB 患者的人口统计学和临床病理学变量。多变量逻辑回归模型用于确定与SLNB使用和SLNB阳性相关的因素:34231人(88%)接受了SLNB,4742人(12%)未进行外科腋窝分期。大多数患者年龄在 50-69 岁之间(51%),非西班牙裔白人(71%),有私人保险(66%)。多变量分析显示,年龄较大的患者接受 SLNB 的可能性较低(P < .01),而等级较高的 DCIS 患者接受 SLNB 的可能性较高(P < .01)。在接受 SLNB 的患者(n = 34,231)中,只有 1,149 人(3.4%)有结节受累。非西班牙裔黑人患者的 SLNB 阳性几率增加(P <.01),而雌激素受体阳性患者的结节阳性几率较低(OR 0.68,P <.001)。鉴于这一比例较低,在选择接受前期乳房切除术的低级别、激素受体阳性 DCIS 患者时,考虑不进行 SLNB 是合理的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical breast cancer
Clinical breast cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.20%
发文量
174
审稿时长
48 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Breast Cancer is a peer-reviewed bimonthly journal that publishes original articles describing various aspects of clinical and translational research of breast cancer. Clinical Breast Cancer is devoted to articles on detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of breast cancer. The main emphasis is on recent scientific developments in all areas related to breast cancer. Specific areas of interest include clinical research reports from various therapeutic modalities, cancer genetics, drug sensitivity and resistance, novel imaging, tumor genomics, biomarkers, and chemoprevention strategies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信