Email this article Sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer restaging
- Authors: Khakimova G.G.1,2, Reshetov I.V.2, Kaprin A.D.3,4, Zikiryakhodzhaev A.D.2,3,4, Khakimova S.G.1,4, Khugaeva F.S.4, Timoshkin V.O.4, Duadze I.S.4
-
Affiliations:
- Tashkent State Medical University
- I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia (Sechenov University)
- RUDN University
- P.A. Hertsen Moscow Oncology Research Institute – branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center, Ministry of Health of Russia
- Issue: Vol 6, No 1 (2026)
- Pages: 24-28
- Section: NEW APPROACHES AND SUCCESSES IN TREATMENT OF ONCOLOGICAL PATIENTS AT THE CURRENT STAGE
- Published: 08.04.2026
- URL: https://mdonco.abvpress.ru/jour/article/view/214
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17650/2782-3202-2026-6-1-24-28
- ID: 214
Cite item
Open Access
Access granted
Subscription or Fee Access
Abstract
Aim. To study the role of SLNB in patients with primary operable breast cancer (T1–2N0/N0–1) in restaging depending on the involvement of regional lymph flow (N status).
Materials and methods. The retrospective study included 956 women with ductal/lobular stage I–IIB breast cancer. The median age was 54 [45; 63] years. According to the TNM clinical staging system, the patients predominantly had stage IA and IIA cancer. In 94 % of patients, no involvement of the SLN was detected. N+ status was registered in 6 % of patients. Histologically, breast cancer was predominantly represented by invasive ductal carcinoma in 87.5 % of the patients. Depending on the molecular subtype, luminal B HER2neu negative breast cancer was found in 38.2 % of the patients and luminal A subtype in 29.6 %. Moderately differentiated breast cancer was found in 63.5 % of the patients.
Results. Median follow-up of the patients was 70.6 [60.0; 82.0] months. Depending on the involvement of the SLN, the following sentinel lymph node biopsy showed the following results: in 77.5 % of the patients, cN0 was confirmed histologically (pN0); in 2.7 %, SLN involvement was staged both clinically and pathologically (cN1–pN1); in 2.8 %, de-escalation of staging was detected (cN1–pN0); and in 0.6 %, SLNB revealed larger volume of damage to the regional lymph collector (cN1–pN2–3). 20 % of the patients underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Among patients with cN1, SLN involvement (pN1) was significantly more often detected histologically in the group after NACT, 6.8 % versus 1.7 % (p = 0.0001), respectively. In 2.8 % with cN1–pN0, NACT efficacy was significantly higher (12.1 % versus 0.5 %, p = 0.00001). Also, in 16.3 % of the patients, pN1 was significantly more common in the group without NACT (18.5 % versus 7.4 %, p = 0.0002).
Conclusion. Conducting SLNB restaged the involvement of the regional lymph collector of T1–2N0/N0–1 patients in 189 (19.8 %) cases. According to the results of SLNB, in 528 (55.2 %) patients with breast cancer, it was possible to refuse lymphadenectomy.
Keywords
About the authors
G. G. Khakimova
Tashkent State Medical University; I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia (Sechenov University)
Author for correspondence.
Email: hgg_doc@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4970-5429
Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Department of Oncology, Radiotherapy and Reconstructive Surgery; N.V. Sklifosovsky Institute of Clinical Medicine, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia (Sechenov University)
Uzbekistan, 2 Faboriy St., Tashkent 100109; Bld. 2, 11 Rossolimo St., Moscow 119021I. V. Reshetov
I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia (Sechenov University)
Email: hgg_doc@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0909-6278
Department of Oncology, Radiotherapy and Reconstructive Surgery; N.V. Sklifosovsky Institute of Clinical Medicine; L.L. Levshin Institute of Cluster Oncology
Russian Federation, Bld. 2, 11 Rossolimo St., Moscow 119021; Build. 2, 8 Trubetskaya St., Moscow 119048A. D. Kaprin
RUDN University; P.A. Hertsen Moscow Oncology Research Institute – branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center, Ministry of Health of Russia
Email: hgg_doc@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8784-8415
Russian Federation, 6 Miklukho-Maklaya St., Moscow 117198; 2nd Botkinskiy Proezd, Moscow 125284
A. D. Zikiryakhodzhaev
I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia (Sechenov University); RUDN University; P.A. Hertsen Moscow Oncology Research Institute – branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center, Ministry of Health of Russia
Email: hgg_doc@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7141-2502
Department of Oncology, Radiotherapy and Reconstructive Surgery; N.V. Sklifosovsky Institute of Clinical Medicine, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia (Sechenov University)
Russian Federation, Bld. 2, 11 Rossolimo St., Moscow 119021; 6 Miklukho-Maklaya St., Moscow 117198; 3 2nd Botkinskiy Proezd, Moscow 125284Sh. G. Khakimova
Tashkent State Medical University; P.A. Hertsen Moscow Oncology Research Institute – branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center, Ministry of Health of Russia
Email: hgg_doc@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9491-0413
Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy
Russian Federation, 2 Faboriy St., Tashkent 10010; 3 2nd Botkinskiy Proezd, Moscow 125284F. S. Khugaeva
P.A. Hertsen Moscow Oncology Research Institute – branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center, Ministry of Health of Russia
Email: hgg_doc@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9749-0445
Russian Federation, 3 2nd Botkinskiy Proezd, Moscow 125284
V. O. Timoshkin
P.A. Hertsen Moscow Oncology Research Institute – branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center, Ministry of Health of Russia
Email: hgg_doc@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2490-9353
Russian Federation, 3 2nd Botkinskiy Proezd, Moscow 125284
I. S. Duadze
P.A. Hertsen Moscow Oncology Research Institute – branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center, Ministry of Health of Russia
Email: hgg_doc@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9577-584X
Russian Federation, 3 2nd Botkinskiy Proezd, Moscow 125284
References
- Ban E.J., Lee J.S., Koo J.S. et al. How many sentinel lymph nodes are enough for accurate axillary staging in t1–2 breast cancer? J Breast Cancer 2011;14(4):296–300. doi: 10.4048/jbc.2011.14.4.296
- Kadam S.S., Kadam T. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in early breast cancer: a brief review. J Breast Cancer Res 2022;2(1):23–7. doi: 10.46439/breastcancer.2.014
- Moo T.A., Jochelson M.S., Zabor E.C. et al. Is clinical exam of the axilla sufficient to select node-positive patients who downstage after NAC for SLNB? A Comparison of the accuracy of clinical exam versus MRI. Ann Surg Oncol 2019;26(13):4238–43. doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07867-x
- Kim T., Giuliano A.E., Lyman G.H. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node biopsy in early stage breast carcinoma: a metaanalysis. Cancer 2006;106(1):4–16. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21568
- Kühn T. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in early breast cancer. Breast Care (Basel) 2011;6(3):185–91. doi: 10.1159/000329193
- Kuehn T., Bauerfeind I., Fehm T. et al. Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy in patients with breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (SENTINA): a prospective, multicentre cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2013;14(7):609–18. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70166-9
Supplementary files
