Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy in patients with breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (SENTINA): a prospective, multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The optimum timing of sentinel-lymph-node biopsy for breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy is uncertain. The SENTINA (SENTinel NeoAdjuvant) study was designed to evaluate a specific algorithm for timing of a standardised sentinel-lymph-node biopsy procedure in patients who undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: SENTINA is a four-arm, prospective, multicentre cohort study undertaken at 103 institutions in Germany and Austria. Women with breast cancer who were scheduled for neoadjuvant chemotherapy were enrolled into the study. Patients with clinically node-negative disease (cN0) underwent sentinel-lymph-node biopsy before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arm A). If the sentinel node was positive (pN1), a second sentinel-lymph-node biopsy procedure was done after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arm B). Women with clinically node-positive disease (cN+) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Those who converted to clinically node-negative disease after chemotherapy (ycN0; arm C) were treated with sentinel-lymph-node biopsy and axillary dissection. Only patients whose clinical nodal status remained positive (ycN1) underwent axillary dissection without sentinel-lymph-node biopsy (arm D). The primary endpoint was accuracy (false-negative rate) of sentinel-lymph-node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients who converted from cN1 to ycN0 disease during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arm C). Secondary endpoints included comparison of the detection rate of sentinel-lymph-node biopsy before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and also the false-negative rate and detection rate of sentinel-lymph-node biopsy after removal of the sentinel lymph node. Analyses were done according to treatment received (per protocol). FINDINGS: Of 1737 patients who received treatment, 1022 women underwent sentinel-lymph-node biopsy before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arms A and B), with a detection rate of 99.1% (95% CI 98.3-99.6; 1013 of 1022). In patients who converted after neoadjuvant chemotherapy from cN+ to ycN0 (arm C), the detection rate was 80.1% (95% CI 76.6-83.2; 474 of 592) and false-negative rate was 14.2% (95% CI 9.9-19.4; 32 of 226). The false-negative rate was 24.3% (17 of 70) for women who had one node removed and 18.5% (10 of 54) for those who had two sentinel nodes removed (arm C). In patients who had a second sentinel-lymph-node biopsy procedure after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arm B), the detection rate was 60.8% (95% CI 55.6-65.9; 219 of 360) and the false-negative rate was 51.6% (95% CI 38.7-64.2; 33 of 64). INTERPRETATION: Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy is a reliable diagnostic method before neoadjuvant chemotherapy. After systemic treatment or early sentinel-lymph-node biopsy, the procedure has a lower detection rate and a higher false-negative rate compared with sentinel-lymph-node biopsy done before neoadjuvant chemotherapy. These limitations should be considered if biopsy is planned after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. FUNDING: Brustkrebs Deutschland, German Society for Senology, German Breast Group.

Residual Axillary Burden After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (NACT) in Early Breast Cancer in Patients with a priori Clinically Occult Nodal Metastases - a transSENTINA Analysis.

Background Among patients with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), the association between pathological complete remission (pCR) in the breast and clinical/pathological parameters is well established, whereas the association between these parameters and residual axillary involvement after NACT remains unclear. Methods Patients with clinically occult nodal metastases (i.e. negative by clinical assessment but positive by SLNB prior to NACT, i.e. Arm B of the SENTINA trial) were included in the presented analysis. All patients received a second sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and axillary dissection after NACT. Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out to evaluate the association between clinical/pathological parameters and axillary involvement after NACT. Results Arm B of the SENTINA study contained 360 patients, 318 of which were evaluable for this analysis. After NACT, 71/318 (22.3%) patients had involved SLNs or non-SLNs after NACT. Overall, 71/318 (22.3%) patients achieved a pCR in the breast. Associations of extranodal spread, lack of multifocality and pCR in the breast with residual axillary burden were statistically significant. In a descriptive analysis including all patients with clinically negative axilla before NACT in the SENTINA trial 1.2% of triple negative (TN) patients and 0.5% of HER/2 positive patients had residual axillary disease in case of a breast pCR. Conclusions Patients in the SENTINA trial with clinically negative axilla and involved SLNs still carried a significant risk of nodal metastases after NACT. However, the risk of residual axillary burden was particularly low in TN and HER/2 positive tumors in case of a breast pCR.

Videodensitometry in the examination of focal breast lesions after injection of an ultrasound contrast agent.

BACKGROUND: The present investigation aimed at assessing the possibility of distinguishing between malignant and benign breast lesions by measuring the signal intensity in vessels of the suspect lesions over time after administration of the ultrasound contrast agent Levovist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Levovist was administered intravenously to 21 patients with breast cancer and 12 patients with a benign breast lesion. In the subsequent ultrasound investigation (Color Power Angiography) the resulting increase in brightness over time in the vessels of the lesions was measured using the videodensitometry method. From the calculated time-brightness curves, the time to maximum brightness (T(max)), time to 90% of maximum brightness (T(90%)), maximum brightness and other time and brightness parameters were determined. The data were analyzed by means of the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test. Additionally, the sensitivity and specificity were calculated for a sequence of cut-off levels for T(90%), T(max) maximum brightness and wash-in wash-out parameters. RESULTS: The differences between the benign and the malignant lesions for the parameters T(max) and T(90%) were statistically significant. The malignant foci showed a significantly more rapid in-flow of the contrast agent (p = 0.006) than the benign lesions. The wash-in wash-out time for Levovist was significantly shorter for the malignant lesions than for the benign lesions (p = 0.02). The time difference in attaining maximum brightness was not significant (p = 0.14). The specificity and sensitivity made a more precise differentiation between benign and malignant tumors possible. CONCLUSION: The use of a contrast agent in Doppler ultrasound enhances the diagnostic reliability in distinguishing between malignant and benign lesions, justifying the use of a contrast agent with a high specificity (92%) such as Levovist. However, invasive pre-operative methods such as punch biopsy are not, thereby, rendered unneccessary. It is possible that the combination of Levovist and videodensitometry will make it possible to increase the specificity of breast cancer diagnosis.