Summary
The ‘standard of care' method for sentinel node mapping is the combination technique using radioisotope and blue dye although some centres use radioisotope or blue dye alone. Radioisotope usage requires licensing, has regulatory issues around handling and disposal of waste, and logistically may be unavailable or difficult to implement in some centres or less developed country. This has led to the development of alternative methods such as superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO), fluorescence techniques using indocyanine green (ICG) or fluorescein, computed tomography lymphography, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound scan (CEUS) using microbubbles. The newer techniques will potentially enable a more widespread adoption of this procedure; however, a common barrier for these techniques is the lack of standardisation and no randomised trials to evaluate their effectiveness against the current standard of care. Furthermore, many of these techniques are more costly and may become redundant in node-negative patients with small tumours if ongoing trials show that sentinel node biopsy offers no additional benefit to grey-scale axillary ultrasound. This review discusses the new techniques for sentinel node mapping that have emerged including their pros and cons.
References
1.
Wetzig N, Gill PG, Zannino D, et al: Sentinel lymph node based management or routine axillary clearance? Three-year outcomes of the RACS sentinel node biopsy versus axillary clearance (SNAC) 1 trial. Ann Surg Oncol 2015;22:17-23.
2.
Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, et al: Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:927-933.
3.
Veronesi U, Viale G, Paganelli G, et al: Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: ten-year results of a randomized controlled study. Ann Surg 2010;251:595-600.
4.
Gill G: Sentinel-lymph-node-based management or routine axillary clearance? One-year outcomes of sentinel node biopsy versus axillary clearance (SNAC): a randomized controlled surgical trial. Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16:266-275.
5.
Mansel RE, Fallowfield L, Kissin M, 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.
6.
Giuliano AE, Jones RC, Brennan M, Statman R: Sentinel lymphadenectomy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:2345-2350.
7.
Barthelmes L, Goyal A, Newcombe RG, McNeill F, Mansel RE: Adverse reactions to patent blue V dye - the NEW START and ALMANAC experience. Eur J Surg Oncol 2010;36:399-403.
8.
Houpeau JL, Chauvet MP, Guillemin F, et al: Sentinel lymph node identification using superparamagnetic iron oxide particles versus radioisotope: the French Sentimag feasibility trial. J Surg Oncol 2016;113:501-507.
9.
Ghilli M, Carretta E, Di FF, et al: The superparamagnetic iron oxide tracer: a valid alternative in sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer treatment. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2017;26:DOI: 10.1111/ecc.12385.
10.
Pinero-Madrona A, Torro-Richart JA, de Leon-Carrillo JM, et al: Superparamagnetic iron oxide as a tracer for sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer: a comparative non-inferiority study. Eur J Surg Oncol 2015;41:991-997.
11.
Rubio IT, Diaz-Botero S, Esgueva A, et al: The superparamagnetic iron oxide is equivalent to the Tc99 radiotracer method for identifying the sentinel lymph node in breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2015;41:46-51.
12.
Thill M, Kurylcio A, Welter R, et al: The Central-European SentiMag study: sentinel lymph node biopsy with superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) vs. radioisotope. Breast 2014;23:175-179.
13.
Douek M, Klaase J, Monypenny I, et al: Sentinel node biopsy using a magnetic tracer versus standard technique: the SentiMAG Multicentre trial. Ann Surg Oncol 2014;21:1237-1245.
14.
Karakatsanis A, Christiansen PM, Fischer L, et al: The Nordic SentiMag trial: a comparison of super paramagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) nanoparticles versus Tc(99) and patent blue in the detection of sentinel node (SN) in patients with breast cancer and a meta-analysis of earlier studies. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2016;157:281-294.
15.
Takada M, Takeuchi M, Suzuki E, et al: Real-time navigation system for sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer patients using projection mapping with indocyanine green fluorescence. Breast Cancer 2018;DOI: 10.1007/s12282-018-0868-2.
16.
Toh U, Iwakuma N, Mishima M, Okabe M, Nakagawa S, Akagi Y: Navigation surgery for intraoperative sentinel lymph node detection using indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence real-time imaging in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2015;153:337-344.
17.
Sorrentino L, Sartani A, Pietropaolo G, et al: A novel indocyanine green fluorescence-guided video-assisted technique for sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer. World J Surg 2018;42:2815-2824.
18.
Ballardini B, Santoro L, Sangalli C, et al: The indocyanine green method is equivalent to the 99mTc-labeled radiotracer method for identifying the sentinel node in breast cancer: a concordance and validation study. Eur J Surg Oncol 2013;39:1332-1336.
19.
Schaafsma BE, Verbeek FP, Rietbergen DD, et al: Clinical trial of combined radio- and fluorescence-guided sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer. Br J Surg 2013;100:1037-1044.
20.
Xiong L, Gazyakan E, Yang W, et al: Indocyanine green fluorescence-guided sentinel node biopsy: a meta-analysis on detection rate and diagnostic performance. Eur J Surg Oncol 2014;40:843-849.
21.
Samorani D, Fogacci T, Panzini I, et al: The use of indocyanine green to detect sentinel nodes in breast cancer: a prospective study. Eur J Surg Oncol 2015;41:64-70.
22.
Sugie T, Sawada T, Tagaya N, et al: Comparison of the indocyanine green fluorescence and blue dye methods in detection of sentinel lymph nodes in early-stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2013;20:2213-2218.
23.
Zhang X, Li Y, Zhou Y, et al: Diagnostic performance of indocyanine green-guided sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2016;11:e0155597.
24.
Ahmed M, Purushotham AD, Douek M: Novel techniques for sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:e351-e362.
25.
Sugie T, Ikeda T, Kawaguchi A, Shimizu A, Toi M: Sentinel lymph node biopsy using indocyanine green fluorescence in early-stage breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Int J Clin Oncol 2017;22:11-17.
26.
Marmor MF, Ravin JG: Fluorescein angiography: insight and serendipity a half century ago. Arch Ophthalmol 2011;129:943-948.
27.
Okuda T, Kataoka K, Yabuuchi T, Yugami H, Kato A: Fluorescence-guided surgery of metastatic brain tumors using fluorescein sodium. J Clin Neurosci 2010;17:118-121.
28.
Okuda T, Yoshioka H, Kato A: Fluorescence-guided surgery for glioblastoma multiforme using high-dose fluorescein sodium with excitation and barrier filters. J Clin Neurosci 2012;19:1719-1722.
29.
Dan AG, Saha S, Monson KM, et al: 1% lymphazurin vs 10% fluorescein for sentinel node mapping in colorectal tumors. Arch Surg 2004;139:1180-1184.
30.
Srivastava A, Suresh J, Ranjan P, et al: Fluorescent fluorescein with methylene blue compared to radioactive sulphur colloid with methylene blue: a randomised comparison. Proc SABCS 2017;abstr PD2-03.
31.
Giuliano AE, McCall L, Beitsch P, 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.
32.
Goyal A, Dodwell D: POSNOC: a randomised trial looking at axillary treatment in women with one or two sentinel nodes with macrometastases. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2015;27:692-695.
33.
Gentilini O, Veronesi U: Abandoning sentinel lymph node biopsy in early breast cancer? A new trial in progress at the European Institute of Oncology of Milan (SOUND: Sentinel node vs Observation after axillary UltraSouND). Breast 2012;21:678-681.
34.
Abe H, Teramoto A, Yamasaki K, et al: The combination of preoperative computed tomography lymphography and intraoperative fluorescence imaging navigation for sentinel lymph node biopsy of early breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2017;35(suppl):567.
35.
Nakagawa M, Morimoto M, Takechi H, Tadokoro Y, Tangoku A: Preoperative diagnosis of sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastasis using 3D CT lymphography (CTLG). Breast Cancer 2016;23:519-524.
36.
Yamamoto S, Suga K, Maeda K, Maeda N, Yoshimura K, Oka M: Breast sentinel lymph node navigation with three-dimensional computed tomography-lymphography: a 12-year study. Breast Cancer 2016;23:456-462.
37.
Greis C: Technology overview: SonoVue (Bracco, Milan). Eur Radiol 2004;14(suppl 8):11-15.
38.
Sidhu PS, Choi BI, Nielsen MB: The EFSUMB Guidelines on the Non-Hepatic Clinical Applications of Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS): a new dawn for the escalating use of this ubiquitous technique. Ultraschall Med 2012;33:5-7.
39.
ter Haar G: Safety and bio-effects of ultrasound contrast agents. Med Biol Eng Comput 2009;47:893-900.
40.
Nielsen MA, Bull J, Culpan AM, et al: Preoperative sentinel lymph node identification, biopsy and localisation using contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 2017;72:959-971.
41.
Sever AR, Mills P, Jones SE, et al: Preoperative sentinel node identification with ultrasound using microbubbles in patients with breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:251-256.
42.
Omoto K, Matsunaga H, Take N, et al: Sentinel node detection method using contrast-enhanced ultrasonography with sonazoid in breast cancer: preliminary clinical study. Ultrasound Med Biol 2009;35:1249-1256.
43.
Galimberti V, Cole BF, Zurrida S, et al: Axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with sentinel-node micrometastases (IBCSG 23-01): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:297-305.
© 2018 S. Karger GmbH, Freiburg
2018
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.
