Intraoperative evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes in patients with breast cancer treated with systemic neoadjuvant therapy.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-07-18 DOI:10.1136/jcp-2023-208862
Mariela Huerta-Rosario, Mariam Mir, Carlos Quispe-Vicuña, Helena Hwang, Venetia Sarode, Yan Peng, Yisheng Fang, Marilyn Leitch, Sunati Sahoo
{"title":"Intraoperative evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes in patients with breast cancer treated with systemic neoadjuvant therapy.","authors":"Mariela Huerta-Rosario, Mariam Mir, Carlos Quispe-Vicuña, Helena Hwang, Venetia Sarode, Yan Peng, Yisheng Fang, Marilyn Leitch, Sunati Sahoo","doi":"10.1136/jcp-2023-208862","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Touch preparation (TP) and frozen section (FS) are the two methods routinely used in the intraoperative evaluation (IOE) of sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) to detect metastases in patients with breast cancer. Both methods are extremely sensitive and specific in the primary surgery (non-neoadjuvant systemic therapy (non-NST)) setting. Since NST introduces unique challenges in the IOE of SLNs, the aim was to determine the accuracy of TP and FS in the IOE of SLNs in the NST setting and compare the results with the non-NST setting and to examine factors that contribute to any differences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analysed 871 SLNs from 232 patients (615 SLNs from NST and 256 SLNs from non-NST settings) between 2016 through 2019.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the NST group, TP alone (n=366) had a sensitivity of 45.7% and specificity of 99.7%; FS alone (n=90) had a sensitivity of 83.3% and specificity of 100%. When both TP and FS (n=135) were used, the sensitivity was 80.3% and the specificity was 98.6%.In the non-NST group, TP alone (n=193) had a sensitivity of 66.7% and specificity of 100%; FS alone (n=22) had a sensitivity and specificity of 100%; and combined TP and FS (n=34) had a sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 96%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Evaluating SLNs intraoperatively in the NST setting can be challenging secondary to therapy-related changes. In the NST setting, FS has higher sensitivity and specificity compared with TP for the IOE of SLNs and should be the preferred method.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":" ","pages":"544-550"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp-2023-208862","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: Touch preparation (TP) and frozen section (FS) are the two methods routinely used in the intraoperative evaluation (IOE) of sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) to detect metastases in patients with breast cancer. Both methods are extremely sensitive and specific in the primary surgery (non-neoadjuvant systemic therapy (non-NST)) setting. Since NST introduces unique challenges in the IOE of SLNs, the aim was to determine the accuracy of TP and FS in the IOE of SLNs in the NST setting and compare the results with the non-NST setting and to examine factors that contribute to any differences.

Methods: We analysed 871 SLNs from 232 patients (615 SLNs from NST and 256 SLNs from non-NST settings) between 2016 through 2019.

Results: In the NST group, TP alone (n=366) had a sensitivity of 45.7% and specificity of 99.7%; FS alone (n=90) had a sensitivity of 83.3% and specificity of 100%. When both TP and FS (n=135) were used, the sensitivity was 80.3% and the specificity was 98.6%.In the non-NST group, TP alone (n=193) had a sensitivity of 66.7% and specificity of 100%; FS alone (n=22) had a sensitivity and specificity of 100%; and combined TP and FS (n=34) had a sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 96%, respectively.

Conclusions: Evaluating SLNs intraoperatively in the NST setting can be challenging secondary to therapy-related changes. In the NST setting, FS has higher sensitivity and specificity compared with TP for the IOE of SLNs and should be the preferred method.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对接受全身新辅助治疗的乳腺癌患者的前哨淋巴结进行术中评估。
目的:触摸制备(TP)和冰冻切片(FS)是乳腺癌患者术中评估(IOE)前哨淋巴结(SLN)以检测转移的两种常规方法。这两种方法在初次手术(非新辅助系统疗法(非 NST))中都非常敏感和特异。由于 NST 为 SLN 的 IOE 带来了独特的挑战,因此我们的目的是确定 TP 和 FS 在 NST 环境下对 SLN 进行 IOE 的准确性,并将结果与非 NST 环境下的结果进行比较,同时研究造成任何差异的因素:我们分析了2016年至2019年期间232名患者的871个SLN(615个SLN来自NST,256个SLN来自非NST环境):在 NST 组中,仅 TP(n=366)的灵敏度为 45.7%,特异性为 99.7%;仅 FS(n=90)的灵敏度为 83.3%,特异性为 100%。在非 NST 组中,单独使用 TP(193 人)的敏感性为 66.7%,特异性为 100%;单独使用 FS(22 人)的敏感性和特异性均为 100%;联合使用 TP 和 FS(34 人)的敏感性和特异性分别为 100%和 96%:由于治疗相关的变化,在 NST 环境中术中评估 SLN 可能具有挑战性。在 NST 环境中,与 TP 相比,FS 在 SLN 的 IOE 中具有更高的灵敏度和特异性,应作为首选方法。
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 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1