Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 6/2018

Open Access 01-06-2018 | Breast Oncology

Associations Between Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy and Complications for Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 6/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To examine the associations between sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and complications among older patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

Methods

We identified women from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare dataset aged 67–94 years diagnosed during 1998–2011 with DCIS who underwent BCS as initial treatment. We assessed incidence of complications, including lymphedema, wound infection, seroma, or pain, within 9 months of diagnosis. We used Mahalanobis matching and generalized linear models to estimate the associations between SLNB and complications.

Results

Our sample consisted of 15,515 beneficiaries, 2409 (15.5%) of whom received SLNB. Overall, 16.8% of women who received SLNB had complications, compared with 11.3% of women who did not receive SLNB (p < 0.001). Use of SLNB was associated with subsequent mastectomy but not radiotherapy. Multivariate analyses of the matched sample showed that, compared with no SLNB, SLNB use was significantly associated with incidence of any complication [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.39; 99% confidence interval (CI) 1.18–1.63], lymphedema (AOR 4.45; 99% CI 2.27–8.75), wound infection (AOR 1.24; 99% CI 1.00–1.54), seroma (AOR 1.40; 99% CI 1.03–1.91), and pain (AOR 1.31; 99% CI 1.04–1.65). Sensitivity analyses excluding patients who underwent mastectomy yielded qualitatively similar results regarding the associations between SLNB and complications.

Conclusions

Among older women with DCIS who received BCS, SLNB use was associated with higher risks of short-term complications. These findings support consensus guidelines recommending against SLNB for this population and provide empirical information for patients.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Virnig BA, Wang SY, Shamilyan T, Kane RL, Tuttle TM. Ductal carcinoma in situ: risk factors and impact of screening. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;41:113–6.CrossRef
2.
3.
Virnig BA, Tuttle TM, Shamliyan T, Kane RL. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review of incidence, treatment, and outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(3):170–8.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Bijker N, Meijnen P, Peterse JL, et al. Breast-conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma-in situ: ten-year results of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer randomized phase III trial 10853–a study by the EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group and EORTC Radiotherapy Group. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(21):3381–7.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Baxter NN, Virnig BA, Durham SB, Tuttle TM. Trends in the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96(6):443–8.CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
8.
Lyman GH, Giuliano AE, Somerfield MR, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(30):7703–20.CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
Coromilas EJ, Wright JD, Huang Y, et al. The influence of hospital and surgeon factors on the prevalence of axillary lymph node evaluation in ductal carcinoma in situ. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(3):323–32.CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
Mannu GS, Bettencourt-Silva JH, Ahmed F, Cunnick G. A nationwide cross-sectional survey of UK breast surgeons’ views on the management of ductal carcinoma in situ. Int J Breast Cancer. 2015;2015:104231.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
McLaughlin SA, Wright MJ, Morris KT, et al. Prevalence of lymphedema in women with breast cancer 5 years after sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary dissection: patient perceptions and precautionary behaviors. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(32):5220–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Lucci A, McCall LM, Beitsch PD, et al. Surgical complications associated with sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) plus axillary lymph node dissection compared with SLND alone in the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Trial Z0011. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(24):3657–63.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Purushotham AD, Upponi S, Klevesath MB, et al. Morbidity after sentinel lymph node biopsy in primary breast cancer: results from a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(19):4312–21.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Wilke LG, McCall LM, Posther KE, et al. Surgical complications associated with sentinel lymph node biopsy: results from a prospective international cooperative group trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13(4):491–500.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Coriddi M, Khansa I, Stephens J, Miller M, Boehmler J, Tiwari P. Analysis of factors contributing to severity of breast cancer-related lymphedema. Ann Plast Surg. 2015;74(1):22–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Wadsten C, Garmo H, Fredriksson I, Sund M, Warnberg F. Risk of death from breast cancer after treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ. Br J Surg. 2017;104(11):1506–13.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Warren JL, Brown ML, Fay MP, Schussler N, Potosky AL, Riley GF. Costs of treatment for elderly women with early-stage breast cancer in fee-for-service settings. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(1):307–316.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Schrag D, Bach PB, Riley GF. Overview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population. Med Care. 2002;40(8 Suppl):IV-3-18.
21.
Caretta-Weyer H, Greenberg CG, Wilke LG, et al. Impact of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011 trial on clinical management of the axilla in older breast cancer patients: a SEER-medicare analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(13):4145–52.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Davis GB, Peric M, Chan LS, Wong AK, Sener SF. Identifying risk factors for surgical site infections in mastectomy patients using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Am J Surg. 2013;205(2):194–9.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Meyer AM, Reeder-Hayes KE, Liu H, et al. Differential receipt of sentinel lymph node biopsy within practice-based research networks. Med Care. 2013;51(9):812–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Schmocker RK, Caretta-Weyer H, Weiss JM, et al. Determining breast cancer axillary surgery within the surveillance epidemiology and end results-Medicare database. J Surg Oncol. 2014;109(8):756–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Yen TW, Laud PW, Sparapani RA, Nattinger AB. Surgeon specialization and use of sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(2):185–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Bach PB, Guadagnoli E, Schrag D, Schussler N, Warren JL. Patient demographic and socioeconomic characteristics in the SEER-Medicare database applications and limitations. Med Care. 2002;40(8 Suppl):IV-19-25.
27.
Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998;36(1):8–27.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Davidoff AJ, Gardner LD, Zuckerman IH, Hendrick F, Ke X, Edelman MJ. Validation of disability status, a claims-based measure of functional status for cancer treatment and outcomes studies. Med Care. 2014;52(6):500–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Davidoff AJ, Zuckerman IH, Pandya N, et al. A novel approach to improve health status measurement in observational claims-based studies of cancer treatment and outcomes. J Geriatr Oncol. 2013;4(2):157–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
D’Agostino RB, Jr. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med. 1998;17(19):2265–81.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Yu JB, Soulos PR, Herrin J, et al. Proton versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: patterns of care and early toxicity. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(1):25–32.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med 2009;28(25):3083–107.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Austin PC. Statistical criteria for selecting the optimal number of untreated subjects matched to each treated subject when using many-to-one matching on the propensity score. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(9):1092–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Normand ST, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E, et al. Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: a matched analysis using propensity scores. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(4):387–98.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Francis AM, Haugen CE, Grimes LM, et al. Is Sentinel lymph node dissection warranted for patients with a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ? Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(13):4270–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Shaitelman SF, Cromwell KD, Rasmussen JC, et al. Recent progress in the treatment and prevention of cancer-related lymphedema. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(1):55–81.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11(3):570–9.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Beckjord EB, Reynolds KA, van Londen GJ, et al. Population-level trends in posttreatment cancer survivors’ concerns and associated receipt of care: results from the 2006 and 2010 LIVESTRONG surveys. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2014;32(2):125–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
40.
Welch HG, Prorok PC, O’Malley AJ, Kramer BS. Breast-cancer tumor size, overdiagnosis, and mammography screening effectiveness. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1438–47.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Associations Between Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy and Complications for Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ
Publication date
01-06-2018
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 6/2018
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6410-0

Other articles of this Issue 6/2018

Annals of Surgical Oncology 6/2018 Go to the issue

Hepatobiliary Tumors

Application of Serum Annexin A3 in Diagnosis, Outcome Prediction and Therapeutic Response Evaluation for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Head and Neck Oncology

SPECT/CT: Looking Beyond Sentinel Lymph Node Identification for Improving Patient Outcomes

Colorectal Cancer

Analysis of the Vascular Interrelationships Among the First Jejunal Vein, the Superior Mesenteric Artery, and the Middle Colic Artery

Gastrointestinal Oncology

Efficacy of Endoscopic Management for Early Remnant Gastric Cancer: Is Completion Gastrectomy Truly Necessary in Cases with Marginally Noncurative Histopathologic Features?

Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcomas

Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes Following Various Treatment Options for Patients with Extraabdominal Desmoid Tumors

Breast Oncology

Major Reduction in Axillary Lymph Node Dissections After Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy for Node-Positive Breast Cancer by combining PET/CT and the MARI Procedure