The value of sentinel lymph-node biopsy after neoadjuvant therapy: an overview

• Published in: Clinical & translational oncology 2022-09, Vol.24 (9), p.1744-1754
• Main Authors: Vázquez, Juan C., Piñero, Antonio, de Castro, Francisco Javier, Lluch, Ana, Martín, Miguel, Barnadas, Agustí, Alba, Emilio, Rodríguez-Lescure, Álvaro, Rojo, Federico, Giménez, Julia, Solá, Iván, Quintana, María Jesús, Bonfill, Xavier, Urrutia, Gerard, Sánchez-Rovira, Pedro
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Oncology; Research Article
• ISSN: 1699-3055; 1699-3055
• DOI: 10.1007/s12094-022-02824-9

Purpose We conducted a systematic review to analyse the performance of the sentinel lymph-node biopsy (SLNB) after the neoadjuvant chemotherapy, compared to axillary lymph-node dissection, in terms of false-negative rate (FNR) and sentinel lymph-node identification rate (SLNIR), sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), need for axillary lymph-node dissection (ALND), morbidity, preferences, and costs. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library were searched. We assessed the quality of the included systematic reviews using AMSTAR2 tool, and estimated the degree of overlapping of the individual studies on the included reviews. Results Six systematic reviews with variable quality were selected. We observed a very high overlapping degree across the included reviews. The FNR and the SLNIR were quite consistent (FNR 13–14%; SLNIR ~ 90% or higher). In women with initially clinically node-negative breast cancer, the FNR was better (6%), with similar SLNIR (96%). The included reviews did not consider the other prespecified outcomes. Conclusions It would be reasonable to suggest performing an SLNB in patients treated with NACT, adjusting the procedure to the previous marking of the affected lymph node, using double tracer, and biopsy of at least three sentinel lymph nodes. More well-designed research is needed. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020114403.