We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
REVIEW
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
A systematic review and meta-analyses of sentinel lymph node identification in breast cancer and melanoma, a plea for tracer mapping.
European Journal of Surgical Oncology 2016 April
PURPOSE: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has become a widely accepted staging procedure for both breast carcinoma and melanoma. The aim of our study was to systematically review different SLNB techniques and perform a meta-analysis for corresponding identification and false-negative rates.
METHODS: A systematic review of the literature on SLNB in patients with early stage breast carcinoma and melanoma was performed. Only original study groups were included. The SLN identification rate and false negative rate were pooled for patients with breast carcinoma or melanoma according to radiocolloid tracer, blue dye, indocyanine green (ICG), or a combination of a radiocolloid tracer with blue dye or ICG.
RESULTS: Between 1992 and 2012, a total of 154 studies (88 breast carcinoma and 66 melanoma) were reported that met our eligibility criteria. These studies included a total of 44,172 patients. The pooled SLN identification rate in breast carcinoma and melanoma patients using solely blue dye was 85% (range: 65-100%) and 84% (range: 59-100%), while for radiocolloid alone it was 94% (range: 67-100%) and 99% (range: 83-100%), respectively. Using a combination of radiocolloid and blue, identification rates were 95% (range 94-95%) and 98% (range: 98-98%).
CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analysis provides data that favors the use of radiocolloid or radiocolloid combined with a blue dye for SLN identification. Performing SLNB with radiocolloid alone is the technique of choice for experienced surgeons, since blue dye has multiple disadvantages. SLNB using ICG as a fluorescent dye seems a promising technique for the near future.
METHODS: A systematic review of the literature on SLNB in patients with early stage breast carcinoma and melanoma was performed. Only original study groups were included. The SLN identification rate and false negative rate were pooled for patients with breast carcinoma or melanoma according to radiocolloid tracer, blue dye, indocyanine green (ICG), or a combination of a radiocolloid tracer with blue dye or ICG.
RESULTS: Between 1992 and 2012, a total of 154 studies (88 breast carcinoma and 66 melanoma) were reported that met our eligibility criteria. These studies included a total of 44,172 patients. The pooled SLN identification rate in breast carcinoma and melanoma patients using solely blue dye was 85% (range: 65-100%) and 84% (range: 59-100%), while for radiocolloid alone it was 94% (range: 67-100%) and 99% (range: 83-100%), respectively. Using a combination of radiocolloid and blue, identification rates were 95% (range 94-95%) and 98% (range: 98-98%).
CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analysis provides data that favors the use of radiocolloid or radiocolloid combined with a blue dye for SLN identification. Performing SLNB with radiocolloid alone is the technique of choice for experienced surgeons, since blue dye has multiple disadvantages. SLNB using ICG as a fluorescent dye seems a promising technique for the near future.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app