Results of a Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study Comparing Indocyanine Green (ICG) Fluorescence Combined with a Standard Tracer Versus ICG Alone for Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Early Breast Cancer: The INFLUENCE Trial

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Vassilis Pitsinis, Rahul Kanitkar, Alessio Vinci, Wen Ling Choong, John Benson
{"title":"Results of a Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study Comparing Indocyanine Green (ICG) Fluorescence Combined with a Standard Tracer Versus ICG Alone for Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Early Breast Cancer: The INFLUENCE Trial","authors":"Vassilis Pitsinis, Rahul Kanitkar, Alessio Vinci, Wen Ling Choong, John Benson","doi":"10.1245/s10434-024-16176-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>For clinically node-negative early breast cancer patients, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) using dual localization with blue dye and radioisotope (RI) is currently standard of care. Documented disadvantages with these tracers have prompted exploration of alternative agents such as fluorescent indocyanine green (ICG), which demonstrates high detection rates combined with other tracers. Results of a randomized study evaluating ICG as a single tracer for SLN identification are presented.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>Overall, 100 patients with unilateral, clinically node-negative, biopsy-proven invasive breast cancer (≤5 cm) scheduled for SLNB were recruited in two separate randomized cohorts, with 50 patients receiving ICG alone. Cohort 1 received ICG alone (<i>n</i> = 25) or combined with RI [Technetium<sup>99</sup>] (<i>n</i> = 25), while Cohort 2 received ICG alone (<i>n</i> = 25) or combined with blue dye (<i>n</i> = 25). The primary outcome was sensitivity for SLN identification.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>Among evaluable patients (<i>n</i> = 97), the overall SLN identification rate was 96.9% (ICG alone = 97.9%; ICG + RI = 100%; ICG + blue dye = 92%). Node positivity rates were 14.9% for ICG alone, 16% for ICG combined with RI, and 20% for ICG combined with blue dye. There were no significant differences (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05) in performance parameters, with ICG alone being non-inferior to tracer combinations for procedural node positivity rates when adjusted for specific factors.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>These results support potential use of ICG as a sole tracer agent for routine SLNB, thereby avoiding disadvantages of RI and/or blue dye. The latter can be safely withheld as a co-tracer without compromising detection of positive nodes in primary surgical patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":8229,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Surgical Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Surgical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-024-16176-x","RegionNum":2,"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

For clinically node-negative early breast cancer patients, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) using dual localization with blue dye and radioisotope (RI) is currently standard of care. Documented disadvantages with these tracers have prompted exploration of alternative agents such as fluorescent indocyanine green (ICG), which demonstrates high detection rates combined with other tracers. Results of a randomized study evaluating ICG as a single tracer for SLN identification are presented.

Methods

Overall, 100 patients with unilateral, clinically node-negative, biopsy-proven invasive breast cancer (≤5 cm) scheduled for SLNB were recruited in two separate randomized cohorts, with 50 patients receiving ICG alone. Cohort 1 received ICG alone (n = 25) or combined with RI [Technetium99] (n = 25), while Cohort 2 received ICG alone (n = 25) or combined with blue dye (n = 25). The primary outcome was sensitivity for SLN identification.

Results

Among evaluable patients (n = 97), the overall SLN identification rate was 96.9% (ICG alone = 97.9%; ICG + RI = 100%; ICG + blue dye = 92%). Node positivity rates were 14.9% for ICG alone, 16% for ICG combined with RI, and 20% for ICG combined with blue dye. There were no significant differences (p < 0.05) in performance parameters, with ICG alone being non-inferior to tracer combinations for procedural node positivity rates when adjusted for specific factors.

Conclusion

These results support potential use of ICG as a sole tracer agent for routine SLNB, thereby avoiding disadvantages of RI and/or blue dye. The latter can be safely withheld as a co-tracer without compromising detection of positive nodes in primary surgical patients.

Abstract Image

比较吲哚菁绿 (ICG) 荧光联合标准示踪剂与单独使用 ICG 进行早期乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检的前瞻性随机多中心研究结果:INFLUENCE 试验
背景对于临床结节阴性的早期乳腺癌患者,使用蓝色染料和放射性同位素(RI)双重定位进行前哨淋巴结活检(SLNB)是目前的标准治疗方法。这些示踪剂的缺点已被记录在案,这促使人们开始探索其他替代药剂,如荧光吲哚菁绿(ICG),它与其他示踪剂联合使用可显示出很高的检出率。方法共招募了 100 名单侧、临床结节阴性、活检证实为浸润性乳腺癌(≤5 厘米)并计划进行 SLNB 的患者,分为两个随机分组,其中 50 名患者单独接受 ICG 治疗。队列 1 单用 ICG(25 人)或联合使用 RI [锝99](25 人),队列 2 单用 ICG(25 人)或联合使用蓝色染料(25 人)。结果在可评估的患者(n = 97)中,SLN 的总体识别率为 96.9%(单用 ICG = 97.9%;ICG + RI = 100%;ICG + 蓝色染料 = 92%)。单独使用 ICG 的结节阳性率为 14.9%,ICG 结合 RI 的结节阳性率为 16%,ICG 结合蓝色染料的结节阳性率为 20%。性能参数无明显差异(p <0.05),根据特定因素调整后,单用 ICG 在手术结节阳性率方面不劣于示踪剂组合。后者可安全地作为辅助示踪剂,而不会影响初诊手术患者阳性结节的检测。
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
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
10.80%
发文量
1698
审稿时长
2.8 months
期刊介绍: The Annals of Surgical Oncology is the official journal of The Society of Surgical Oncology and is published for the Society by Springer. The Annals publishes original and educational manuscripts about oncology for surgeons from all specialities in academic and community settings.
×
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