Mednet Logo
CommunityRadiation Oncology

Based on the SENTINA trial, is it reasonable to allow for axillary assessment via SLNB alone (without axillary dissection) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for an upfront clinically node-positive patient?

Would there be concern that the false negative rate be too high with a SLNB alone? Is this mitigated by having the clinically involved node clipped at time of biopsy and having surgeons remove more than one sentinel node at time of surgery? Would the standard of care still be considered for axillary dissection in these cases?
8 Answers
Mednet Member
Mednet MemberInvited Expert
Radiation Oncology · Varian Medical Systems/Allegheny health network
Answered on

False-negative is reduced to 5% or low with dual tracer, taking more than two sentinel nodes out and making sure bx positive node is clipped, localized, and taken out.

Join for free or sign in to see the full answer

Mednet Member
Mednet MemberInvited Expert
Radiation Oncology · Duke University Medical Center
Answered on

I agree with @Dr. First Last and @Dr. First Last, that SLNB is a reasonable way to evaluate the axilla following neoadjuvant CT for a clinically node-positive patient at diagnosis per the ACOSOG and Sentina trials and given the caveats mentioned. Perhaps a more significant question, however, is what...

Join for free or sign in to see the full answer

Mednet Member
Mednet MemberInvited Expert
Radiation Oncology · University of Colorado School of Medicine
Answered on · Updated on

In a patient who has had a clinical complete nodal response to NAC, an SLNbx is the appropriate procedure. Based on data from SENTINA and ACOSOG Z1071, False Negative Rates (FNR) of <10% are achieved when blue and radiotracer dyes are used (controllable) or 3 or more SLNs are identified (we can't pr...

Join for free or sign in to see the full answer

Mednet Member
Mednet MemberInvited Expert
Radiation Oncology · Washington University School of Medicine
Answered on

Yes.

Join for free or sign in to see the full answer

Mednet Member
Mednet Member
Radiation Oncology · Swedish Covenant Hospital (Chicago IL)
Answered on

For Node(+) that converts to SN (-) after NA CTX. If the tumor is ER neg I would treat high tangents and Supraclav, but not full axilla or IM. If ER (+), I would treat high tangent only, unless multiple (2 or more) nodes were positive.

Join for free or sign in to see the full answer

Mednet Member
Mednet Member
Radiation Oncology · Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center
Answered on

@Dr. First Last, remember that up-front SLNB is not allowed in B51 (requires core needle or FNA), potentially due to concerns about high FNR from SENTINA, although I do not have the full protocol currently available to confirm or deny this from their introduction.

I believe Dr. @Dr. First Last may be...

Join for free or sign in to see the full answer

Mednet Member
Mednet Member
Radiation Oncology · Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center
Answered on

To the points brought up by @Dr. First Last and @Dr. First Last, NSABP B51 will answer whether omitting RNI in patients who have gone from cN1 to ypN0 is oncologically safe. So, perhaps, in the future (based on trial results), patients will have cN1 disease, get neoadjuvant chemotherapy, convert to ...

Join for free or sign in to see the full answer

Mednet Member
Mednet Member
Radiation Oncology · Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center
Answered on

Thank you all for the comments. Something I was getting at though, is whether we find in SNLB alone a sufficiently low FN rate if we have omission of RT arm in B51, since they need a pCR in the nodes. My bias, and of course, we will see the numbers for how many patients got ALMD plus/minus SLNB, wou...

Join for free or sign in to see the full answer