Ann Surg Treat Res.  2019 Aug;97(2):49-57. 10.4174/astr.2019.97.2.49.

Is the frozen section examination for sentinel lymph node necessary in early breast cancer patients?

• Yoon KH
• Park S
• Kim JY
• Park HS
• Kim SI
• Cho YU
• Park BW

• KMID: 2455978
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2019.97.2.49

Abstract

PURPOSE
Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy (SLNB) is widely performed for axillary staging in patients with breast cancer. Based on the results of frozen section examination (FSE), surgeons can decide to continue further axillary dissections. This study aimed to verify the accuracy of FSE for SLNs.
METHODS
We reviewed the records of 4,219 patients who underwent SLNB for primary invasive breast cancer between 2007 and 2016 at the Severance Hospital. We evaluated factors associated with the false-negative results of FSE for SLNs using the Generalized Estimating Equations model.
RESULTS
A total of 1,397 SLNs from 908 patients were confirmed to be metastatic. Seventy-one patients (1.7%) had confirmed pathologic N2 or N3 stage. Among metastatic SLNs, micrometastasis was found in 234 (16.8%). The overall accuracy of SLNB was 98.5%. The sensitivity and false-negative rate of FSE were 86.4% and 13.6%, respectively. Several clinicopathological factors, including the size of SLN metastases, suspicious preoperative axillary lymph nodes, and luminal B subtype, were associated with a higher rate of false-negative results.
CONCLUSION
Most patients were not indicated for axillary lymph node dissection. Some patients may show transition in their permanent pathology due to the size of the metastatic node. However, the false-negative results of FSE for SLNs based on the size of the metastatic node did not change our practice. Therefore, intraoperative FSE for SLN should not be routinely performed for all breast cancer patients.

Keyword

Breast neoplasms; False negative reactions; Frozen sections; Sentinel lymph node biopsy

MeSH Terms

Biopsy
Breast Neoplasms*
Breast*
False Negative Reactions
Frozen Sections*
Humans
Lymph Node Excision
Lymph Nodes*
Neoplasm Metastasis
Neoplasm Micrometastasis
Pathology
Phenobarbital
Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy
Surgeons
Phenobarbital

Reference

1. Canavese G, Catturich A, Vecchio C, Tomei D, Gipponi M, Villa G, et al. Sentinel node biopsy compared with complete axillary dissection for staging early breast cancer with clinically negative lymph nodes: results of randomized trial. Ann Oncol. 2009; 20:1001–1007.

2. Mansel RE, Fallowfield L, Kissin M, Goyal A, Newcombe RG, Dixon JM, et al. Randomized multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy versus standard axillary treatment in operable breast cancer: the ALMANAC Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006; 98:599–609.

3. Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Viale G, Luini A, Zurrida S, Galimberti V, et al. A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349:546–553.

4. Zavagno G, De Salvo GL, Scalco G, Bozza F, Barutta L, Del Bianco P, et al. A randomized clinical trial on sentinel lymph node biopsy versus axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer: results of the Sentinella/GIVOM trial. Ann Surg. 2008; 247:207–213.

5. Galimberti V, Cole BF, Viale G, Veronesi P, Vicini E, Intra M, et al. Axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with breast cancer and sentinel-node micrometastases (IBCSG 23-01): 10-year follow-up of a randomised, controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018; 19:1385–1393.

6. Giuliano AE, McCall L, Beitsch P, Whitworth PW, Blumencranz P, Leitch AM, et al. Locoregional recurrence after sentinel lymph node dissection with or without axillary dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node metastases: the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2010; 252:426–432. discussion 432–3.

7. Akay CL, Albarracin C, Torstenson T, Bassett R, Mittendorf EA, Yi M, et al. Factors impacting the accuracy of intra-operative evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer. Breast J. 2018; 24:28–34.

8. Francissen CM, van la Parra RF, Mulder AH, Bosch AM, de Roos WK. Evaluation of the benefit of routine intraoperative frozen section analysis of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer. ISRN Oncol. 2013; 2013:843793.

9. Jorns JM, Kidwell KM. Sentinel lymph node frozen-section utilization declines after publication of American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 trial results with no change in subsequent surgery for axillary lymph node dissection. Am J Clin Pathol. 2016; 146:57–66.

10. Jensen AJ, Naik AM, Pommier RF, Vetto JT, Troxell ML. Factors inf luencing accuracy of axillary sentinel lymph node frozen section for breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2010; 199:629–635.

11. Liu LC, Lang JE, Lu Y, Roe D, Hwang SE, Ewing CA, et al. Intraoperative frozen section analysis of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer patients: a meta-analysis and single-institution experience. Cancer. 2011; 117:250–258.

12. Wong J, Yong WS, Thike AA, Iqbal J, Salahuddin AS, Ho GH, et al. False negative rate for intraoperative sentinel lymph node frozen section in patients with breast cancer: a retrospective analysis of patients in a single Asian institution. J Clin Pathol. 2015; 68:536–540.

13. Layfield DM, Agrawal A, Roche H, Cutress RI. Intraoperative assessment of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2011; 98:4–17.

14. Somashekhar SP, Naikoo ZA, Zaveri SS, Holla S, Chandra S, Mishra S, et al. Intraoperative frozen section evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes in breast carcinoma: single-institution indian experience. Indian J Surg. 2015; 77:Suppl 2. 335–340.

15. Frank Liu G, Zhan X. Comparisons of methods for analysis of repeated binary responses with missing data. J Biopharm Stat. 2011; 21:371–392.

16. Kardys I, Baart S, van Domburg R, Lenzen M, Hoeks S, Boersma E. Tools and techniques - statistical: a brief nonstatistician's guide for choosing the appropriate regression analysis, with special attention to correlated data and repeated measurements. EuroIntervention. 2015; 11:957–962.

17. Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986; 73:13–22.

18. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A, editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer;2010.

19. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 2002; 41:154–161.

20. Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Wolff AC, Mangu PB, Temin S. American society of clinical oncology/college of american pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2010; 6:195–197.

21. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG, Dowsett M, McShane LM, Allison KH, et al. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014; 138:241–256.

22. Esposito E, Di Micco R, Gentilini OD. Sentinel node biopsy in early breast cancer. A review on recent and ongoing randomized trials. Breast. 2017; 36:14–19.

23. Jaffer S, Bleiweiss IJ. Evolution of sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer, in and out of vogue? Adv Anat Pathol. 2014; 21:433–442.

24. Park S, Park JM, Cho JH, Park HS, Kim SI, Park BW. Sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with cytologically proven node-positive breast cancer at diagnosis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013; 20:2858–2865.

25. Poling JS, Tsangaris TN, Argani P, Cimino-Mathews A. Frozen section evaluation of breast carcinoma sentinel lymph nodes: a retrospective review of 1,940 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014; 148:355–361.

26. Ballehaninna UK, Chamberlain RS. Utility of intraoperative frozen section examination of sentinel lymph nodes in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Clin Breast Cancer. 2013; 13:350–358.