前哨淋巴结活检术的研究进展
Research Progress of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy
DOI: 10.12677/md.2024.144070, PDF, HTML, XML,   
作者: 刘颜招, 朱红成*, 李长仔, 张 祎:华北理工大学附属医院甲状腺外一科,河北 唐山
关键词: 乳腺肿瘤外科前哨淋巴结活组织检查综述Breast Neoplasms Surgical Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Review
摘要: 腋窝淋巴结状态是乳腺癌的分期、治疗方案的选择、以及预后的评估的重要依据,前哨淋巴结活检对于早期乳腺癌患者有重要的意义,是评估其是否转移的标准之一,是腋窝淋巴结阴性患者的标准术式。虽然前哨淋巴结具有创伤小,后遗症少等优点,可以很大程度地提高患者的生活质量,但是在传统观念上腋窝淋巴结清扫(ALND)仍然是前哨淋巴结阳性乳腺癌患者的标准治疗方法。近年来有研究表明,对于1~2个淋巴结微转移的患者可免除ALND,其总体生存并不会受到影响。对于腋窝淋巴结阳性患者新辅助治疗后能否行前哨淋巴结活检对腋窝淋巴结状态进行较为精准的评估仍然存在争议。本文将结合现有与前哨淋巴结活检相关文献,就前哨淋巴结活检的研究进展以及其在临床上面临的一些争议和问题做一综述。
Abstract: Axillary lymph node status is an important basis for the staging of breast cancer, the choice of treatment plan, and the evaluation of prognosis. Sentinel lymph node biopsy is of great significance for early breast cancer patients, and is one of the criteria for evaluating whether it is metastatic. It is also a standard operation for axillary lymph node negative patients. Although sentinel lymph nodes have the advantages of less trauma and fewer sequelae, which can greatly improve the quality of life of patients, in the traditional concept, axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) is still the standard treatment for patients with sentinel lymph node positive breast cancer. In recent years, studies have shown that patients with 1~2 lymph node micrometastases can be exempted from ALND, and their overall survival will not be affected. Whether sentinel lymph node biopsy can accurately evaluate axillary lymph node status in axillary lymph node positive patients after neoadjuvant therapy remains controversial. This article will review the research progress of sentinel lymph node biopsy and some controversies and problems in clinical practice based on the existing literatures related to sentinel lymph node biopsy.
文章引用:刘颜招, 朱红成, 李长仔, 张祎. 前哨淋巴结活检术的研究进展[J]. 医学诊断, 2024, 14(4): 487-494. https://doi.org/10.12677/md.2024.144070

1. 引言

现代医学早期乳腺癌患者的治疗策略越来越规范化,个体化,精准化,而乳腺癌患者的腋窝淋巴结管理一直是备受关注的热点问题,腋窝淋巴结(Axillary Lymph Node, ALN)是乳腺癌发生局部转移最常见的部位,准确评估ALN状态是乳腺癌分期、治疗以及预后判断的重要依据。ALN状态是影响乳腺癌患者总生存率(Overall Survival, OS)的重要预后因素[1]。传统的观念认为,腋窝淋巴结清扫(ALND)是乳腺癌患者的标准治疗方法,但是其会引起上肢水肿,功能障碍等问题,严重影响了患者的生活质量。前哨淋巴结(SLN)是乳腺癌淋巴转移的第一站,SLINB是通过在原发病灶周围注射蓝色染料、放射性胶体,或者联合染料进行的,它们会通过淋巴管进入第一个引流的淋巴结,然后我们就可以找到蓝染的淋巴结并且将它摘除。在前哨淋巴结活检(SLNB)提出的一个多世纪里,乳腺癌外科治疗发生了戏剧性的变化,SLNB降低了并发症的发生率[2]-[4],大大提高了患者的生活治疗。SLNB是替代ALND进行乳腺癌淋巴分期的一种微创方法,与术后远期低发病率有关[5]。目前,SLNB已经替代ALND成为SLN阴性乳腺癌病人腋窝根治性手术的主要方式。

2. 前哨淋巴结活检术的发展历史

希腊内科医生盖伦首次描述了乳腺癌的外科治疗,在他的描述中写道“将肿瘤与健康组织接壤的区域内围成一圈切除”。19世纪中叶随着麻醉和防腐技术的发展,外科医生们对癌症患者们进行了更为彻底的手术,乳腺癌的手术治疗模式基本形成。从1960年英国外科医生查尔斯休伊特摩尔(Charles Hewitt Moore)建议采用的包括胸壁肌肉切除在内的乳房切除术和完全腋窝淋巴结清扫到1980年威廉霍尔斯特德(William Halsted)提出的乳腺癌根治术。从1885年到1930年一直是乳腺癌的乳腺癌根治术主要外科术式,这种术式对于人们的创伤极大。直到1930年Patey提出的改良根治术得到了推广,乳腺癌根治术的应用才逐渐减少。乳腺癌改良根治术在根治术的基础上免除了胸肌和三级腋窝淋巴结的清扫。随着放射治疗和化学治疗的进展,保乳术得到了普及,保乳术联合放化疗是目前大多数乳腺癌患者的标准治疗策略。随着人们对于乳腺癌的不断探索,对于其治疗要求也越来越高,外科医生不断探索对于患者来说创伤小,治疗效果佳的手术方式。对于腋窝淋巴结的处理也越来越精简。1990年美国国立研究院认为腋窝淋巴结的一级和二级采样就足以进行分期和预防腋窝复发。前哨淋巴结活检标志着乳腺癌的外科治疗进入了微创时代,前哨淋巴结的概念是在一次腮腺切除术中提出的,首次描述的是1977年识别与阴茎肿瘤相关的淋巴通道技术,1990年前哨淋巴结活检才开始应用于乳腺癌,并在之后的随访数据中显示,前哨淋巴结活检可以安全替代全腋窝淋巴结清扫,前哨淋巴结活检的应用十分广泛,不仅可以应用于乳腺癌,也可以应用于其他肿瘤[6]

3. 前哨淋巴结活检技术

3.1. 方法

SLINB是通过在原发病灶周围注射蓝色染料、放射性胶体,或者联合染料进行的,它们会通过淋巴管进入第一个引流的淋巴结,然后我们就可以找到蓝染的淋巴结并且将它摘除[7]

3.2. 前哨淋巴结活检术示踪方法的应用

前哨淋巴结活检术的关键在于示踪剂的选择和使用,目前主要的方法包括:染料法、核素法、蓝色染料与核素联合的双示踪法以及超顺磁氧化铁示踪法等[8]。目前国内最常用的染料法,其可视性较好,操作直观,不易遗漏SLN。但是可能会导致过敏反应,曾经有报道称亚甲蓝可导致胎儿畸形,因此妊娠期患者并不推荐使用[9]。我国应用最为普遍的染料是亚甲蓝,其识别率和假阴性率与进口染料相似且价格较低,在我国得到了广泛的应用[10]。我国国内研制的一种新型示踪剂盐酸米托蒽醌注射液的成功率和安全性已经得到证实,但是由于其昂贵的价格,并未在我国普遍应用[11]。由于国内对于放射性安全性以及核素载体的准入问题,影响了国内核素的应用,有调研显示,我国核素作为示踪剂的使用仅占15.46% [12]。荧光成像法和超顺磁性氧化铁纳米颗粒(SPIO)在临床上也有应用,但是由于各种限制在我国的应用并不广泛。目前单用放射性示踪剂或者和蓝色染料联合示踪是SLNB比较常用的方法。核素标记和蓝色染料联合使用是目前国际上公认的最为成熟的方法,是SLNB的金标准[13]。有研究表明联合示踪法的识别率比单用染料或者核素高,且其假阴性率也低于单染料或核素示踪[14]

3.3. 前哨淋巴结活检术的禁忌症和适应症

适应症:早期浸润性乳腺癌,临床检查腋窝淋巴结阴性;导管原位癌,临床不能除外伴有浸润者;新辅助治疗前cN0,新辅助治疗后cN0;新辅助治疗前cN1,新辅助治疗后cN0。

禁忌症:炎性乳癌;浸润性乳腺癌,经穿刺活检确诊腋窝淋巴结转移,未经新辅助治疗直接手术者;新辅助前cN+,新辅助后仍为cN+;示踪剂过敏[15]。妊娠患者。

4. 前哨淋巴结活检术的优势和争议

SLNB提供的分期信息可以用来进一步指导的治疗,同时也避免了一些ALND常见的并发症,如上肢麻木疼痛,淋巴水肿,运动缺陷,以及手臂的感觉障碍等[16]。ACOSOG Z0011、IBCSG 23-01和EORTC AMAROS等实验表明对于不符合这些试验资格标准的临床淋巴结阴性BC且SLN阳性患者,以及前期手术环境中临床淋巴结阳性 BC患者和初次全身治疗(PST)后有残留淋巴结病变的患者,ALND仍然是标准治疗[16]-[19]。国外有学者研究表明行SLNB的患者5年内上肢水肿的发生率明显低于行ALND的患者[20]。NSAB B-32试验表明前哨淋巴结活检(SLNB)的生存效益和腋窝淋巴结清扫(ALND)相似,且具有较少的副作用[21]。腋窝淋巴结清扫(ALMANAC)试验发现SLNB的患者比ALND患者能够有更好的生活质量且能更快地恢复正常的日常生活[22]。SLNB的引进和其较低的假阴性相关,有研究表明SLNB的假阴性率应该低于5%,这和外科医生的经验和技能熟练程度密切相关,外科医生需要完成一定的学习曲线才能较为准确地检出前哨淋巴结[23]。临床上cN1患者新辅助治疗后行SLNB已经被证实具有一定准确性和可靠性[24]。虽然对于早期淋巴结阴性患者国内外均推荐行SLNB后可不行ALND,但是对于新辅助化疗(NAC)后SLNB的应用尚存在一些争议,尤其是临床淋巴结阳性患者NAC后是否适用SLNB [25]。有研究表明新辅助化疗后淋巴管纤维化、淋巴结不均匀萎缩等解剖结构方面的原因从而导致SLNB的假阴性率增高[26]。ACOSOGZ1071试验表明NAC后SLNB假阴性率和检出数量有关,其检出数量 ≥ 3时其假阴性率明显降低,且当使用双示踪法时其假阴性率低于单示踪法[27]。SENTINA试验表明临床腋窝淋巴结阳性NAC后转阴的患者,其SLNB假阴性率14.2%,并且使用双示踪法不仅可以明显降低假阴性率,其识别率也得到了一定的提高[28]。以上实验结果表明NAC后SLNB的假阴性率与示踪剂的选择,SLN检出数量等因素相关。目前对于前哨淋巴结阳性早期乳腺癌患者最佳腋窝管理方式的选择仍存在争议。NAC后SLNB高假阴性率仍然是目前无法回避的一大难题,如何进一步降低NAC后SLNB的假阴性率是有关乳腺癌患者腋窝管理研究的热点。

5. 新辅助治疗后SLNB的应用

随着乳腺癌新辅助治疗(NAC)药物的不断优化,临床上NAC的应用也越来越广泛应。NAC不但可以提高乳腺癌的保乳率,还可以使20%~60%的腋窝淋巴结阳性患者经NAC后转为阴性[29]。而三阴性和HER-2基因扩增患者的病理完全缓解率(pCR)则可以达到50%以上[30]。目前认为NAC前腋窝淋巴结阴性的患者NAC后行SLNB是可行的、安全的,但是对于NAC前腋窝淋巴结阳性的患者经NAC后腋窝淋巴结转阴的患者能否用SLNB替代ALND则存在很大争议,主要是由于在于这部分患者NAC后SLNB的总体假阴性率超过了10% [31]。而国内外指南认为SLNB假阴性率 < 10%被认为是可接受的。

6. SLNB低肿瘤负荷外科处理模式的转变

SLN的概念逐步引入乳腺癌外科临床研究中,SLNB也成为早期乳腺癌的标准术式,在临床中推广应用[2] [32]。对于SLIN阴性的患者指南均推荐豁免ALND [33]-[36],然而大量研究发现有40%~70%的前哨淋巴结阳性患者,在行腋窝淋巴结清扫后,经病理证实切除的腋窝淋巴结并无癌细胞转移[37]-[39],为了鉴别这部分前哨淋巴结阳性患者并使其避免腋窝淋巴结清扫,越来越多的机构和研究者分析前哨淋巴结和腋窝淋巴结转移的危险因素,并制作预测模型,评估淋巴结转移风险,来减少不必要的手术创伤。目前关于早期乳腺癌的前哨淋巴结转移的研究多为回顾性研究,与早期乳腺癌患者前哨淋巴结转移危险因素尚未明确。因此,有必要建立一个基于临床和生物学数据的模型指导临床治疗。其中认可度较高的为美国纪念斯隆凯特林癌症中心(Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, MSKCC)模型和SOC模型[40] [41]。列线图是在肿瘤学和医学中广为流行的可视化统计工具,是现代医疗决策重要的组成部分。列线图作为一种更为简单、先进的方法,影响因素和传统分期比起来更加的直观和清晰,可以将连续变量和疾病的相关决定因素纳入预测,从而通过整合各个相关变量计算出单个临床事件发生的概率。临床医生可以通过简单的数字界面进行快速计算,并根据患者的临床病理信息预估风险,对疾病进程及患者预后做出更为精确判断,可以更好地指导临床工作中个性化治疗[42]。然而,所有预测模型都是基于回顾性数据而建立,且纳入临床因素较多,其临床上的推广受到了很大的限制,亟需更高级别循证医学数据探索该部分SLN低肿瘤负荷乳腺癌患者的最佳腋窝处理模式,在保证区域控制效果的同时又最大程度地提高患者术后的生活质量。

7. SLNB豁免的探索

乳腺癌手术方式一直追求“减法”变革,手术越做越小的发展趋势下,虽然SLNB带来的并发症发生率较ALND显著降低,但是有研究表明但是SLNB也可以发生上肢淋巴结水肿、肩背部疼痛及力量减弱、手臂麻木等并发症的发生[43],同时SLNB有较高的检出失败率和假阴性率[44]。有研究表明,临床上腋窝淋巴结受累的患者约有33%~39%的患者未检测到SLN的转移,同时在SLN转移的患者中又约有60%~70%的患者术后病理提示腋窝淋巴结阴性[45]。对于那些原发肿瘤较小、腋窝影像学检查阴性的早期乳腺癌患者,SLNB可能存在过度治疗的风险[46],SLNB也可以发生上肢淋巴结水肿、肩背部疼痛及力量减弱、手臂麻木等并发症的发生,不仅延长住院时间,还增加住院费用和患者的经济负担。SOUND随机对照实验结果表明,对于肿瘤小于2 cm且术前腋窝淋巴结超声检查阴性的患者,前哨淋巴结活检与非前哨淋巴结活检相比五年远处无病生存率、腋窝复发率、远处复发率、无病生存率和总生存率相似,这部分人群豁免前哨淋巴结是安全的[47]。多项研究发现乳腺癌患者的分子亚型与腋窝状态之间存在密切关联[48],luminal B型乳腺癌淋巴结转移风险高不建议豁免SLNB [49],而对于luminal A型乳腺癌是否应该进行SLNB仍存在争议[50]。三阴性乳腺癌(TNBC)早期可发生淋巴结转移,有研究表明肿瘤大小和肿瘤位置是淋巴结转移的独立风险因素。有多项研究表明肿瘤大小与前哨淋巴结状态密切相关[51],且有研究结果显示肿瘤较小且前哨淋巴结转移率较低的T1期患者更有可能免于进行前哨淋巴结活检[52]。目前对于肿瘤位置是否与前哨淋巴结状态存在关联仍存在争议。

8. 小结

SLNB是乳腺癌外科治疗近年来的重要进展之一,可以初步评估乳腺癌患者的转移状态,改变了传统乳腺癌腋窝管理方式,更为安全、精准、便捷。同时SLNB也标志着乳腺癌手术治疗微创时代的到来,其术后并发症和死亡率的发生率明显降低。相信随着对于SLNB技术的不断探索,将来关于SLN阳性患者的腋窝管理的问题将会达成共识。

NOTES

*通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] Rao, R., Euhus, D., Mayo, H.G. and Balch, C. (2013) Axillary Node Interventions in Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review. JAMA, 310, 1385-1394.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.277804
[2] Krag, D.N., Anderson, S.J., Julian, T.B., Brown, A.M., Harlow, S.P., Ashikaga, T., et al. (2007) Technical Outcomes of Sentinel-Lymph-Node Resection and Conventional Axillary-Lymph-Node Dissection in Patients with Clinically Node-Negative Breast Cancer: Results from the NSABP B-32 Randomised Phase III Trial. The Lancet Oncology, 8, 881-888.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(07)70278-4
[3] Veronesi, U., Paganelli, G., Viale, G., Luini, A., Zurrida, S., Galimberti, V., et al. (2003) A Randomized Comparison of Sentinel-Node Biopsy with Routine Axillary Dissection in Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 349, 546-553.
https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa012782
[4] Posther, K.E., McCall, L.M., Blumencranz, P.W., Burak, W.E., Beitsch, P.D., Hansen, N.M., et al. (2005) Sentinel Node Skills Verification and Surgeon Performance: Data from a Multicenter Clinical Trial for Early-Stage Breast Cancer. Annals of Surgery, 242, 593-602.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000184210.68646.77
[5] Schulze, T., Mucke, J., Markwardt, J., Schlag, P.M. and Bembenek, A. (2006) Long-Term Morbidity of Patients with Early Breast Cancer after Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Compared to Axillary Lymph Node Dissection. Journal of Surgical Oncology, 93, 109-119.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.20406
[6] Goodman, S., O’Connor, A., Kandil, D. and Khan, A. (2014) The Ever-Changing Role of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in the Management of Breast Cancer. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, 138, 57-64.
https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2012-0441-ra
[7] Heerdt, A.S. (2018) Lymphatic Mapping and Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Breast Cancer. JAMA Oncology, 4, 431.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.4000
[8] 赵娜, 张瑞. 乳腺癌腋窝前哨淋巴结活检术示踪方法的应用进展[J]. 内蒙古医科大学学报, 2021, 43(1): 100-103.
[9] 杨耿侠, 王磊, 张英民, 等. 乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检放射安全性研究[J]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2007, 1(6): 34-43.
[10] Simmons, R., Thevarajah, S., Brennan, M.B., Christos, P. and Osborne, M. (2003) Methylene Blue Dye as an Alternative to Isosulfan Blue Dye for Sentinel Lymph Node Localization. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 10, 242-247.
https://doi.org/10.1245/aso.2003.04.021
[11] 孙晓, 陈玉光, 邱鹏飞, 等. 乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检术的示踪剂[J]. 中国临床药理学杂志, 2022, 38(4): 347-351.
[12] 郭瑢, 李伦, 张琪, 等. 中国乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检现状调查研究[J]. 中国癌症杂志, 2020, 30(3): 166-173.
[13] 姜军, 王殊. 乳腺癌荧光示踪前哨淋巴结活组织检查操作指南[J]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2017, 11(4): 193-197.
[14] Long, Y., Xiaowei, Q., Yi, Z., Xinhua, Y., Fan, Z., Linjun, F., et al. (2018) Comparison of Sentinel Lymph Node Detection Performances Using Blue Dye in Conjunction with Indocyanine Green or Radioisotope in Breast Cancer Patients: A Prospective Single-Center Randomized Study. Cancer Biology & Medicine, 15, 452-460.
https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2018.0270
[15] 叶京明, 郭宝良, 张建国, 等. 中国早期乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检手术临床实践指南(2022版) [J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2022, 42(2): 137-145.
[16] Giuliano, A.E. (2011) Axillary Dissection vs No Axillary Dissection in Women with Invasive Breast Cancer and Sentinel Node Metastasis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA, 305, 569-575.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.90
[17] Giuliano, A.E., McCall, L., Beitsch, P., Whitworth, P.W., Blumencranz, P., Leitch, A.M., et al. (2010) 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. Annals of Surgery, 252, 426-433.
https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e3181f08f32
[18] Galimberti, V., Cole, B.F., Zurrida, S., Viale, G., Luini, A., Veronesi, P., et al. (2013) Axillary Dissection versus No Axillary Dissection in Patients with Sentinel-Node Micrometastases (IBCSG 23-01): A Phase 3 Randomised Controlled Trial. The Lancet Oncology, 14, 297-305.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(13)70035-4
[19] Donker, M., van Tienhoven, G., Straver, M.E., Meijnen, P., van de Velde, C.J.H., Mansel, R.E., et al. (2014) Radiotherapy or Surgery of the Axilla after a Positive Sentinel Node in Breast Cancer (EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS): A Randomised, Multicentre, Open-Label, Phase 3 Non-Inferiority Trial. The Lancet Oncology, 15, 1303-1310.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70460-7
[20] Belmonte, R., Messaggi-Sartor, M., Ferrer, M., Pont, A. and Escalada, F. (2018) Prospective Study of Shoulder Strength, Shoulder Range of Motion, and Lymphedema in Breast Cancer Patients from Pre-Surgery to 5 Years after ALND or Slnb. Supportive Care in Cancer, 26, 3277-3287.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-018-4186-1
[21] Krag, D.N., Anderson, S.J., Julian, T.B., Brown, A.M., Harlow, S.P., Costantino, J.P., et al. (2010) 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. The Lancet Oncology, 11, 927-933.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(10)70207-2
[22] Mansel, R.E., Fallowfield, L., Kissin, M., Goyal, A., Newcombe, R.G., Dixon, J.M., et al. (2006) Randomized Multicenter Trial of Sentinel Node Biopsy versus Standard Axillary Treatment in Operable Breast Cancer: The Almanac Trial. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 98, 599-609.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djj158
[23] McMasters, K.M., Wong, S.L., Chao, C., Woo, C., Tuttle, T.M., Noyes, R.D., et al. (2001) Defining the Optimal Surgeon Experience for Breast Cancer Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy: A Model for Implementation of New Surgical Techniques. Annals of Surgery, 234, 292-300.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-200109000-00003
[24] Kahler-Ribeiro-Fontana, S., Pagan, E., Magnoni, F., Vicini, E., Morigi, C., Corso, G., et al. (2021) Long-Term Standard Sentinel Node Biopsy after Neoadjuvant Treatment in Breast Cancer: A Single Institution Ten-Year Follow-Up. European Journal of Surgical Oncology, 47, 804-812.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2020.10.014
[25] 黄娅, 陈洁. 乳腺癌新辅助化疗后前哨淋巴结分析的研究进展[J]. 中国普通外科杂志, 2022, 31(5): 658-667.
[26] Kuehn, T., Bauerfeind, I., Fehm, T., Fleige, B., Hausschild, M., Helms, G., et al. (2013) Sentinel-Lymph-Node Biopsy in Patients with Breast Cancer before and after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (SENTINA): A Prospective, Multicentre Cohort Study. The Lancet Oncology, 14, 609-618.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(13)70166-9
[27] Boughey, J.C., Ballman, K.V., Le-Petross, H.T., McCall, L.M., Mittendorf, E.A., Ahrendt, G.M., et al. (2016) Identification and Resection of Clipped Node Decreases the False-Negative Rate of Sentinel Lymph Node Surgery in Patients Presenting with Node-Positive Breast Cancer (T0-T4, N1-N2) Who Receive Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Results from ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance). Annals of Surgery, 263, 802-807.
https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000001375
[28] Schwentner, L., Helms, G., Nekljudova, V., Ataseven, B., Bauerfeind, I., Ditsch, N., et al. (2017) Using Ultrasound and Palpation for Predicting Axillary Lymph Node Status Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy—Results from the Multi-Center SENTINA Trial. The Breast, 31, 202-207.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2016.11.012
[29] 邵志敏, 吴炅, 江泽飞, 等. 中国乳腺癌新辅助治疗专家共识(2022年版) [J]. 中国癌症杂志, 2022, 32(1): 80-89.
[30] Sheikh, F., Nazir, A., Yasmeen, S., Badar, F., Ahmad, U. and Siddiqui, N. (2019) Pathologic Complete Response in Her2-Positive Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Trastuzumab in Neoadjuvant Setting. Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan, 29, 159-163.
https://doi.org/10.29271/jcpsp.2019.02.159
[31] 王绪麟, 邓铖, 徐航, 等. 新辅助化疗后腋窝淋巴结阳性转阴乳腺癌患者前哨淋巴结活检的临床价值[J]. 中国普通外科杂志, 2023, 32(5): 788-92.
[32] 周嵘, 曾繁余. 乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检术的研究现状及展望[J]. 世界最新医学信息文摘, 2019, 19(43): 68-70.
[33] Lyman, G.H., Giuliano, A.E., Somerfield, M.R., Benson, A.B., Bodurka, D.C., Burstein, H.J., et al. (2005) American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline Recommendations for Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Early-Stage Breast Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23, 7703-7720.
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.08.001
[34] Goldhirsch, A., Wood, W.C., Gelber, R.D., Coates, A.S., Thürlimann, B. and Senn, H.-J. (2007) Progress and Promise: Highlights of the International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2007. Annals of Oncology, 18, 1133-1144.
https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdm271
[35] 王永胜, 欧阳涛, 王启堂, 等. 中国前哨淋巴结活检多中心协作研究CBCSG-001最新资料报告[J]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2009, 3(3): 265-272.
[36] 中国抗癌协会乳腺癌专业委员会, 中华医学会肿瘤学分会乳腺肿瘤学组. 中国抗癌协会乳腺癌诊治指南与规范(2024年版) [J]. 中国癌症杂志, 2023, 33(12): 1092-1187.
[37] Giuliano, A.E., Jones, R.C., Brennan, M. and Statman, R. (1997) Sentinel Lymphadenectomy in Breast Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 15, 2345-2350.
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1997.15.6.2345
[38] Meretoja, T.J., Leidenius, M.H.K., Heikkilä, P.S., Boross, G., Sejben, I., Regitnig, P., et al. (2012) International Multicenter Tool to Predict the Risk of Nonsentinel Node Metastases in Breast Cancer. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 104, 1888-1896.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djs455
[39] Sachdev, U., Murphy, K., Derzie, A., Jaffer, S., Bleiweiss, I.J. and Brower, S. (2002) Predictors of Nonsentinel Lymph Node Metastasis in Breast Cancer Patients. The American Journal of Surgery, 183, 213-217.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9610(02)00794-8
[40] Van Zee, K.J., Manasseh, D.E., Bevilacqua, J.L.B., Boolbol, S.K., Fey, J.V., Tan, L.K., et al. (2003) A Nomogram for Predicting the Likelihood of Additional Nodal Metastases in Breast Cancer Patients with a Positive Sentinel Node Biopsy. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 10, 1140-1151.
https://doi.org/10.1245/aso.2003.03.015
[41] Kohrt, H.E., Olshen, R.A., Bermas, H.R., Goodson, W.H., Wood, D.J., Henry, S., et al. (2008) New Models and Online Calculator for Predicting Non-Sentinel Lymph Node Status in Sentinel Lymph Node Positive Breast Cancer Patients. BMC Cancer, 8, Article No. 66.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-8-66
[42] Balachandran, V.P., Gonen, M., Smith, J.J. and DeMatteo, R.P. (2015) Nomograms in Oncology: More than Meets the Eye. The Lancet Oncology, 16, e173-e180.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(14)71116-7
[43] Kootstra, J.J., Hoekstra-Weebers, J.E.H.M., Rietman, J.S., de Vries, J., Baas, P.C., Geertzen, J.H.B., et al. (2010) A Longitudinal Comparison of Arm Morbidity in Stage I-II Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy, Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Followed by Completion Lymph Node Dissection, or Axillary Lymph Node Dissection. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 17, 2384-2394.
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-0981-8
[44] Yun, S.J., Sohn, Y. and Seo, M. (2017) Risk Stratification for Axillary Lymph Node Metastases in Breast Cancer Patients: What Clinicopathological and Radiological Factors of Primary Breast Cancer Can Predict Preoperatively Axillary Lymph Node Metastases? Ultrasound Quarterly, 33, 15-22.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ruq.0000000000000249
[45] Ding, J., Jiang, L. and Wu, W. (2017) Predictive Value of Clinicopathological Characteristics for Sentinel Lymph Node Metastasis in Early Breast Cancer. Medical Science Monitor, 23, 4102-4108.
https://doi.org/10.12659/msm.902795
[46] Jozsa, F., Ahmed, M., Baker, R. and Douek, M. (2019) Is Sentinel Node Biopsy Necessary in the Radiologically Negative Axilla in Breast Cancer? Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 177, 1-4.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05299-5
[47] Gentilini, O.D., Botteri, E., Sangalli, C., Galimberti, V., Porpiglia, M., Agresti, R., et al. (2023) Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy vs No Axillary Surgery in Patients with Small Breast Cancer and Negative Results on Ultrasonography of Axillary Lymph Nodes: The SOUND Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncology, 9, 1557-1564.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.3759
[48] Nakagawa, T., Huang, S.K., Martinez, S.R., Tran, A.N., Elashoff, D., Ye, X., et al. (2006) Proteomic Profiling of Primary Breast Cancer Predicts Axillary Lymph Node Metastasis. Cancer Research, 66, 11825-11830.
https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.can-06-2337
[49] Zhang, J., Pei, J. and Liu, H. (2018) Clinical Risk Analysis of Non-Visualized Sentinel Lymph Node in Breast Cancer. Cancer Biomarkers, 23, 179-183.
https://doi.org/10.3233/cbm-170958
[50] Zong, Q., Deng, J., Ge, W., Chen, J. and Xu, D. (2020) Establishment of Simple Nomograms for Predicting Axillary Lymph Node Involvement in Early Breast Cancer. Cancer Management and Research, 12, 2025-2035.
https://doi.org/10.2147/cmar.s241641
[51] Fragomeni, S.M., Sciallis, A. and Jeruss, J.S. (2018) Molecular Subtypes and Local-Regional Control of Breast Cancer. Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America, 27, 95-120.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soc.2017.08.005
[52] Yoshihara, E., Smeets, A., Laenen, A., Reynders, A., Soens, J., Van Ongeval, C., et al. (2013) Predictors of Axillary Lymph Node Metastases in Early Breast Cancer and Their Applicability in Clinical Practice. The Breast, 22, 357-361.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2012.09.003