ライフサイエンスコーパス: SLNB

1 SLNB FS is highly effective in detecting the subgroup of

2 SLNB guided by a combination of radioisotope and blue dy

3 SLNB has replaced axillary lymph node dissection (ALND)

4 SLNB in patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer re

5 SLNB is the standard of care in surgical oncology of the

6 SLNB use was associated with clinicopathologic factors b

7 SLNB use was reported in 13.3% of patients with clinical

8 SLNB without LSG will speed up the preoperative workflow

9 In the 106 SLNBs, which were found to be pathologically and clinica

10 toff probability resulted in performing 1825 SLNBs, or 1815 fewer SLNBs than the actual experience (4

11 ies were rated level III, and a total of 197 SLNBs were reported.

12 Seventy-six patients underwent 2 SLNB procedures for a total of 775 intraoperative Tc-99

13 ber of SLNBs as historically performed (3640 SLNBs), with 1066 positive SLNBs (29.3%), constituting a

14 Of 33,639 SLNB patients (from 646 hospitals), 2916 (8.7%) had at l

15 anic, and 816 [71.0%] White individuals; 666 SLNB [58.2%] and 478 TAD [41.8%]) were included.

16 (7) SLNB should not be performed for Spitz tumors unless a d

17 ame expected number of positive results (779 SLNBs), for a 42.7% positivity rate.

18 episodes of anaphylaxis in a total of 61,951 SLNB procedures, resulting in a weighed anaphylaxis rate

19 rable breast cancer that were eligible for a SLNB from October 2002 to October 2010 were included in

20 ndred ninty-nine patients were accrued for a SLNB with an average age 57.1 +/- 12.8 (range 24-92).

21 ectively underwent 685 ARM procedures with a SLNB and/or ALND.

22 itals were divided into terciles of adjusted SLNB positivity rates.

23 dema after SLN biopsy (SLNB) alone and after SLNB followed by axillary lymph node dissection (SLNB/AL

24 However, even after SLNB alone, there remains a clinically relevant risk of

25 e physical and psychological morbidity after SLNB in the treatment of early breast cancer in a random

26 ates, and rates of regional recurrence after SLNB for melanoma using radiocolloid alone are acceptabl

27 atively new, the pattern of recurrence after SLNB is not yet clear.

28 When compared with SLNB/ALND, SLNB alone results in a significantly lower rate of lymp

29 When compared to SLNB/ALND, SLNB-alone results in a significantly lower rate of pati

30 Model 2 included age, weight, race, ALND/SLNB status, any chemotherapy, and patient-reported arm

31 l 1 included age, weight, height, race, ALND/SLNB status, any radiation therapy, and any chemotherapy

32 , 10.7%, and 8.0% for ALND+RLNR, ALND alone, SLNB+RLNR, and SLNB alone, respectively.

33 were similar for the ALND+RLNR, ALND-alone, SLNB+RLNR, and SLNB-alone groups (2.8%, 3.8%, 0%, and 2.

34 ch: sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) alone, SLNB+RLNR, axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) alone,

35 Although SLNB use increased in both black and white patients with

36 Among 57 patients who had an SLNB, prepubertal patients had a higher percentage of se

37 Determine whether patients undergoing an SLNB required the addition of isosulfan blue dye to radi

38 Any SLNB, including SLNB alone and SLNB followed by ALND, and ALND alone.

39 .20; P = .49) and between the SLNB-alone and SLNB+RLNR groups (HR, 1.33; P = .44).

40 High-volume units performed more BCS and SLNB than low-volume units (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, res

41 need for axillary lymph node dissection, and SLNB is an accurate method of determining nodal status a

42 lymph nodes on lymphoscintigraphy (LSG) and SLNB was performed by quantifying lymphatic drainage pat

43 Tc99 sulfur colloid lymphoscintigraphy, and SLNB was performed with use of a conventional fixed gamm

44 ntinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB)-negative and SLNB-positive findings.

45 0% for ALND+RLNR, ALND alone, SLNB+RLNR, and SLNB alone, respectively.

46 or the ALND+RLNR, ALND-alone, SLNB+RLNR, and SLNB-alone groups (2.8%, 3.8%, 0%, and 2.3%, respectivel

47 .1% [7 of 620]; P = .50) between the TAD and SLNB groups, with an overall locoregional recurrence rat

48 site, thicker tumors, tumor ulceration, and SLNB positivity.

49 Any SLNB, including SLNB alone and SLNB followed by ALND, an

50 n of study variables with the outcome of any SLNB.

51 the 186 of 1096 women (17%) who received any SLNB, 137 (73.7%) were White individuals; and of the 910

52 Among women undergoing any SLNB, 119 of 186 (64%) did not undergo a completion ALND

53 ALND underwent ALND at the same operation as SLNB.

54 ival rates or overall survival rates between SLNB and ALND groups but have shown significantly lower

55 proportion of sentinel lymph node biopsies (SLNB) performed by high-volume surgeons in invasive canc

56 Observations: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) after NAC in patients presenting with clinically n

57 A) consisting of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) alone if sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) were negative

58 urgery approach: sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) alone, SLNB+RLNR, axillary lymph node dissection (

59 ma rates in both sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) may be b

60 iopsy (TLNB) and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and was recently introduced as a new standard for

61 performed before sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for breast cancer.

62 elines recommend sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for patients with clinical stage IB/II melanomas,

63 The validity of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for T1 or T2, clinically N0, oral cancer was teste

64 Indications for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for thin melanoma are continually evolving.

65 d specificity of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) frozen section (FS) examinations to detect metasta

66 Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has become the gold standard for axillary staging.

67 al metastases by sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has been questioned.

68 e application of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in the management of cutaneous squamous cell carci

69 Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is a newly developed method of staging the axilla

70 Although sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is a vital staging tool, its application in head a

71 Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is an accurate, less invasive alternative to axill

72 Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is being evaluated in breast cancer patients to im

73 T1 melanoma, yet sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is controversial in this population given the over

74 Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is currently the standard of care for staging the

75 Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for axillary staging in pa

76 ies suggest that sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) may not be reliable in IBC.

77 er who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) for invas

78 llowed by either sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or axillary lymph node dissection.

79 uation by either sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or complete lymph node dissection (CLND) to all pa

80 ase treated with sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or targeted axillary dissection (TAD) alone or wit

81 er-than-expected sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) positivity rates and whether hospitals with lower-

82 n validated that sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) shows whether a patient's breast cancer or melanom

83 ts who underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) using radiocolloid guidance alone.

84 Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) was developed to replace axillary lymph node disse

85 , categorized as sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), or none.

86 database, using sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), from 1992 to 2006, identified 109 patients with t

87 cedures, such as sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), marking axillary lymph node with radioactive iodi

88 cal excision and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), should follow National Comprehensive Cancer Netwo

89 rwent subsequent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), which yielded negative findings in 32 (89%) patie

90 g subgroups with sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB)-negative and SLNB-positive findings.

91 so develop after sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB).

92 ging accuracy of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB).

93 m prevalence of lymphedema after SLN biopsy (SLNB) alone and after SLNB followed by axillary lymph no

94 ce in such patients treated with SLN biopsy (SLNB) alone are unknown because axillary lymph node diss

95 d thirty-six women who underwent SLN biopsy (SLNB) alone or SLNB followed by axillary lymph node diss

96 ion in lymph node yield was present for both SLNB and ALND, which could potentially be improved throu

97 ); survival differences were not observed by SLNB positivity rates for stage II/III.

98 or T1 or T2 N0 oral squamous cell carcinoma, SLNB with step sectioning and immunohistochemistry, perf

99 versations may help to successfully decrease SLNB rates in this patient population.

100 followed by axillary lymph node dissection (SLNB/ALND) between June 1, 1999, and May 30, 2003, were

101 followed by axillary lymph node dissection (SLNB/ALND).

102 umerous case reports and case series examine SLNB findings in patients who were considered to have hi

103 year survival than those treated at expected SLNB positivity rate hospitals (90.0% vs 91.9%, P = 0.01

104 ge I patients treated at lower-than-expected SLNB positivity rate hospitals had worse 5-year survival

105 ospitals with lower- or higher-than-expected SLNB positivity rates have worse patient outcomes.

106 urgery at hospitals with lower-than-expected SLNB positivity rates was associated with decreased surv

107 ur colloid, nuclear imaging, narrow-exposure SLNB, and completion selective neck dissection.

108 lted in performing 1825 SLNBs, or 1815 fewer SLNBs than the actual experience (49.9%).

109 ive lymph node case was discovered following SLNB in our study.

110 For SLNB, pooled rates of IFR and FNR were 89% and 17%.

111 illary recurrence rate was 0.2% and 1.4% for SLNB and ALND, respectively.

112 h 18.6% (22 of 118; 90% CI, 13.0%-25.5%) for SLNB (P < .001) and 6.8% (8 of 118; 90% CI, 3.4%-11.9%)

113 ity-level nodal yield ranged from 1 to 6 for SLNB and from 6 to 22 for ALND.

114 of 72.8% (59 of 81; 90% CI, 63.5%-80.8%) for SLNB and an FNR of 7.0% (10 of 143; 90% CI, 3.8%-11.6%)

115 patients with melanoma who were eligible for SLNB at 2 melanoma centers from Australia and the US fro

116 ng care to older women who were eligible for SLNB omission.

117 0 years [66.0%]); 2349 patients eligible for SLNB who did not undergo the procedure were included in

118 Guidelines for SLNB have focused on pathologic factors, but patient fac

119 er study is needed to define indications for SLNB in melanomas < 0.75 mm.

120 V is still insufficient to substitute it for SLNB for exclusion of axillary lymph node metastasis.

121 t of 21 different risk prediction models for SLNB positivity, 20 external validations of 8 different

122 The false-negative rate for SLNB for melanoma is approximately 17%, for which failur

123 , 2.3-3.0) and the nodal positivity rate for SLNB was 12.2% (IQR, 11.0%-13.7%), with rates ranging fr

124 Objective lymphedema rates for SLNB and ALND were 0.8% and 6.5% respectively, with 26-m

125 , who would generally not be recommended for SLNB, had an LN positivity rate of 5.6% (95% CI, 3.3%-8.

126 rger, who would generally be recommended for SLNB, had an LN positivity rate of only 3.9% (95% CI, 2.

127 using these nomograms to guide selection for SLNB at the lowest thresholds.

128 using the models only improved selection for SLNB compared to biopsy in all patients when a risk thre

129 e differences in recurrence and survival for SLNB alone versus SLNB with completion ALND.

130 performed using the subareolar technique for SLNB in patients with operable breast cancer.

131 ene blue, and indigo carmine), when used for SLNB.

132 Median facility-level nodal yield for SLNB was 2.6 (IQR, 2.3-3.0) and the nodal positivity rat

133 All patients underwent an FS SLNB.

134 al benefit and cost-effectiveness of i31-GEP-SLNB compared with free clinicopathologic-based predicti

135 psy selection strategies, use of the i31-GEP-SLNB model had greater net benefit for patients with T1b

136 hed external validation study of the i31-GEP-SLNB prediction model.

137 A neural network-based model (i31-GEP-SLNB) that uses clinicopathologic factors (thickness, mi

138 34 (42%) had 3 or more negative SLNs and had SLNB alone.

139 Patients having SLNB alone were older than those having SLNB/ALND (56 v

140 ving SLNB alone were older than those having SLNB/ALND (56 v 52 years; P < .0001).

141 Hospital SLNB positivity rates may be a novel measure to confiden

142 Adjusted hospital SLNB positivity rates varied widely.

143 ith axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) if SLNB or PET was positive, or ALND alone if SLNs were not

144 Given its prognostic importance, SLNB should be considered in such patients, particularly

145 This racial disparity in SLNB use contributed to racial disparities in lymphedema

146 Anaphylaxis to blue dyes in SLNB is rare.

147 th Tc99-labeled radiocolloid localization in SLNB for melanoma.

148 ity of approximately 12 percentage points in SLNB use persisted through 2007.

149 Any SLNB, including SLNB alone and SLNB followed by ALND, and ALND alone.

150 by 863 surgeons, 56.4% underwent an initial SLNB, 37.2% initial axillary lymph node dissection, and

151 nt predictors of women undergoing an initial SLNB.

152 pital's SLNB positivity rate may reflect its SLNB proficiency for melanoma, but this has never been i

153 Hospital-level SLNB positivity rates were adjusted for patient- and tum

154 In simulation, adopting many SLNB-positive probabilities as minimally acceptable pati

155 certainty regarding its use with mastectomy, SLNB or ALND is performed frequently.

156 patient estimate for probability of melanoma SLNB positivity) with a corresponding measure of model d

157 For clinical stage IB/II melanoma, SLNB use was reported in 48.7% of patients.

158 Among 7331 patients with melanoma, SLNB outcomes were assessed in 3640 Australian patients

159 Six of 175 patients with a negative SLNB developed a regional node recurrence as the first s

160 nce within the biopsied basin after negative SLNB's performed without isosulfan blue dye.

161 False-negative SLNB results were reported in 5 articles involving 9 of

162 f sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) were negative, SLNB with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) if SLNB

163 of SLNB alone patients, compared with 16% of SLNB/ALND patients (P < .0001).

164 hatics were identified in 29.2% (138/472) of SLNB and 71.8% (153/213) of ALND.

165 measurements documented lymphedema in 5% of SLNB alone patients, compared with 16% of SLNB/ALND pati

166 rgeted axillary dissection (a combination of SLNB and a MARI-like procedure), have been proposed to r

167 b category that may warrant consideration of SLNB.

168 ing by a combination procedure consisting of SLNB with excision of a pre-NST marked positive lymph no

169 the largely unsuccessful deimplementation of SLNB in women 70 years and older with cT1N0 HR-positive,

170 To assess the survival impact of SLNB in melanoma, the Multicenter Selective Lymphadenect

171 olds promise for reducing false negatives of SLNB for melanoma.

172 e necessary to demonstrate noninferiority of SLNB without LSG.

173 t was the negative-predictive value (NPV) of SLNB.

174 tion was interpreted as increased numbers of SLNB-positive outcomes achieved, decreased numbers of SL

175 Individualized probabilities of SLNB positivity generated by a patient-centered methodol

176 As the false-negative rate of SLNB correlates with the number of resected sentinel lym

177 cancer from 2002 through 2007, the rates of SLNB remained lower in black than white patients during

178 Certainly, the use of SLNB in MIBC is quite the conundrum.

179 The use of SLNB increased by year for both black and white patients

180 Racial disparities in the use of SLNB remain incompletely characterized, and their effect

181 In multivariable analysis, the use of SLNB was associated with diagnosis year, clinical nodal

182 6, 1.2%; 2012, 0.3%), with increasing use of SLNB.

183 bability of 8.7% elicited the same number of SLNBs as historically performed (3640 SLNBs), with 1066

184 tive outcomes achieved, decreased numbers of SLNBs performed, or both outcomes simultaneously.

185 Clinicians may offer SLNB in patients who have cT3-T4c or multicentric tumors

186 st cancer expertise are less likely to offer SLNB to these patients, this practice pattern could lead

187 nterviews revealed that the decision to omit SLNB was based on nuanced patient- and disease-level fac

188 uded in quantitative analysis: 17 studies on SLNB, 1 study on MARI, and 2 studies on a combination pr

189 men with breast cancer who underwent ALND or SLNB from 1999 to 2020 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cance

190 men who underwent SLN biopsy (SLNB) alone or SLNB followed by axillary lymph node dissection (SLNB/AL

191 ve breast cancer who underwent SLNB alone or SLNB/ALND.

192 allocated to undergo ALND (control group) or SLNB followed by ALND if subsequently found to be lymph

193 Surgeon and pathologist SLNB technical errors may lead to incorrect melanoma sta

194 efit for either model compared to performing SLNB for all patients.

195 s percentage varied by operation: PM 15%, PM SLNB 25%, LC 33%, LIH 15%, and IH 31%.

196 patients undergoing each operation: PM 5, PM SLNB 10, LC 15, LIH 15, and IH 15.

197 stectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy (PM SLNB), laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), laparoscopic i

198 Positive SLNB findings by cSCC stage, quantified as the number an

199 The odds having a positive SLNB decreased by 13% each year with increasing age.

200 elationship between tumor stage and positive SLNB findings and to identify the optimal staging system

201 The AJCC criteria identifed positive SLNB findings in 0 of 9 T1 lesions (0%), 13 of 116 T2 le

202 Rates of positive SLNB findings in patients with T2b lesions were statisti

203 est that most cSCCs associated with positive SLNB findings occur in T2 lesions (in both staging syste

204 y performed (3640 SLNBs), with 1066 positive SLNBs (29.3%), constituting an improvement of 287 additi

205 tive SLNBs compared with 779 actual positive SLNBs (36.8% improvement).

206 ng an improvement of 287 additional positive SLNBs compared with 779 actual positive SLNBs (36.8% imp

207 r increased the expected numbers of positive SLNBs.

208 ies achieved an AUROC of 0.803 in predicting SLNB positivity in the Australian cohort and 0.826 in th

209 ts were randomized on a 1:1 ratio to receive SLNB (SLNB group) or no axillary surgery (no axillary su

210 t SLNB were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive SLNB either with knowledge of the LSG findings or withou

211 was reported in 3% of patients who received SLNB alone versus 27% of patients who received SLNB/ALND

212 NB alone versus 27% of patients who received SLNB/ALND (P < .0001), as compared with 5% and 16%, resp

213 may increase oncologists' anxiety regarding SLNB omission.

214 Clinicians should not recommend routine SLNB in select patients who are postmenopausal and >=50

215 A hospital's SLNB positivity rate may reflect its SLNB proficiency fo

216 Ninety-six SLNB procedures were done in 88 patients with breast can

217 e randomized on a 1:1 ratio to receive SLNB (SLNB group) or no axillary surgery (no axillary surgery

218 In this prospective cohort study, SLNB had acceptable diagnostic accuracy for patients wit

219 ioactive-labeled colloid LSG with subsequent SLNB were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive SLNB either w

220 However, these data support SLNB for MCC more than 1 cm in diameter.

221 ile) and higher-than-expected (high tercile) SLNB positivity rates were more likely to be low-volume

222 ve disease, clinical trials demonstrate that SLNB after NAC is accurate when 3 or more sentinel nodes

223 We show that SLNB is equally effective irrespective of the surgeon's

224 t, insufficient evidence exists showing that SLNB improves patient outcomes and survival.

225 e groups (HR, 1.20; P = .49) and between the SLNB-alone and SLNB+RLNR groups (HR, 1.33; P = .44).

226 26 patients were correctly identified by the SLNB algorithm, yielding a sensitivity of 96% (95% CI, 8

227 ly 1 patient (0.6%) was misclassified by the SLNB algorithm.

228 ease-free survival rates were better for the SLNB group than for the observation group, specifically

229 Five-year distant DDFS was 97.7% in the SLNB group and 98.0% in the no axillary surgery group (l

230 In the SLNB group, 97 patients (13.7%) had positive axillary no

231 s, and 21 (3.0%) deaths were observed in the SLNB group, and 11 (1.6%) locoregional relapses, 14 (2.0

232 o-treat analysis, 708 were randomized to the SLNB group, and 697 were randomized to the no axillary s

233 disease-free survival rate compared with the SLNB group, this difference did not reach statistical si

234 ratio [HR], 2.66; P = .02) compared with the SLNB+RLNR group.

235 By using a 5% metastasis risk threshold, SLNB is indicated for melanomas >/= 0.75 mm, but further

236 AUS is a noninvasive alternative to SLNB for staging the axilla.

237 AUS may be an alternative to SLNB in these patients, where axillary surgery is no lon

238 r, both models added net benefit compared to SLNB for all patients.

239 When compared to SLNB/ALND, SLNB-alone results in a significantly lower r

240 ssion of axillary surgery was noninferior to SLNB in patients with small BC and a negative result on

241 not different between subjects randomized to SLNB with lymphadenectomy for nodal metastasis on biopsy

242 y less likely than white patients to undergo SLNB (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.60-0.75; P < .001).

243 ts were significantly more likely to undergo SLNB alone if they were older, had smaller tumors, or we

244 cifically, women were most likely to undergo SLNB if the operation was performed by high-volume surge

245 e IB/II melanoma were less likely to undergo SLNB if they were older than 75 years; had T1b tumors, n

246 gnated hospitals were most likely to undergo SLNB in adherence with national consensus guidelines.

247 Eligibility guidelines to undergo SLNB should include a context-tailored minimum cutoff pr

248 cer are significantly more likely to undergo SLNB, highlighting the importance of receiving initial t

249 R, 1 [reference]), 8.8% in blacks undergoing SLNB (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.02-1.60; P = .03), 12.2% in wh

250 cohorts of patients with melanoma undergoing SLNB and a cohort of eligible patients without SLNB.

251 s with primary cutaneous melanoma undergoing SLNB between 2010 to 2020.

252 patients with cutaneous melanoma undergoing SLNB from the Swedish Melanoma Registry from January 200

253 cases had a higher likelihood of undergoing SLNB.

254 pediatric and adolescent patients undergoing SLNB using ICG-NIR at a single institution from 2019 to

255 Stage IA-III melanoma patients undergoing SLNB were identified from the National Cancer Data Base

256 o December 2013 involved patients undergoing SLNB with or without ALND, or ALND alone.

257 ymphedema risk was 6.8% in whites undergoing SLNB (HR, 1 [reference]), 8.8% in blacks undergoing SLNB

258 8% underwent SLNB alone, and 79.2% underwent SLNB with completion ALND.

259 ent SLNB alone and 336 women (36%) underwent SLNB/ALND.

260 Of the 936 women, 600 women (64%) underwent SLNB alone and 336 women (36%) underwent SLNB/ALND.

261 Of 97,314 patients, 20.8% underwent SLNB alone, and 79.2% underwent SLNB with completion ALN

262 AC, 555 (91%) converted to cN0 and underwent SLNB; 234 (42%) had 3 or more negative SLNs and had SLNB

263 0 years]) with cT1-4N1-3M0 disease underwent SLNB (n = 620) or TAD alone (n = 356).

264 breast cancer rendered cN0 by NAC underwent SLNB with dual tracer mapping and omission of ALND if 3

265 All patients underwent SLNB and PLND, and 101 patients (80%) with high-grade EC

266 All patients underwent SLNB followed by lymphadenectomy as the reference standa

267 f negative US results subsequently underwent SLNB, which revealed lymph node metastasis in 12 (27%) p

268 ly node-negative breast cancer who underwent SLNB alone or SLNB/ALND.

269 rence or survival for patients who underwent SLNB alone versus completion ALND.

270 mes were examined for patients who underwent SLNB alone versus SLNB with completion ALND (median foll

271 with thin (</=1 mm) melanomas who underwent SLNB between 1992 and 2009 at Melanoma Institute Austral

272 pectively queried for patients who underwent SLNB for melanoma during the years 2005 through 2008.

273 ith primary cutaneous melanoma who underwent SLNB from 1991 through 1998 were identified from a prosp

274 zed primary cutaneous melanoma who underwent SLNB were identified.

275 tients with nonanogenital cSCC who underwent SLNB.

276 ive nodes has an accuracy similar to upfront SLNB and reduces the need for axillary lymph node dissec

277 oward better outcomes for completion ALND (v SLNB alone) after analysis was adjusted for differences

278 for patients who underwent SLNB alone versus SLNB with completion ALND (median follow-up, 63 months).

279 ecurrence and survival for SLNB alone versus SLNB with completion ALND.

280 ph node ratio (TAD, 0.28 [IQR, 0.20-0.40] vs SLNB, 0.33 [IQR, 0.20-0.50]; P = .03).

281 f total lymph nodes removed (TAD, 4 [3-6] vs SLNB, 4 [3-6]; P = .09).

282 ed that the rate of regional recurrence when SLNB is performed with radiocolloid alone would be compa

283 It is not known whether SLNB rates differ by surgeon expertise.

284 In a subgroup of 174 patients in whom SLNB and the MARI procedure were successful and ALND was

285 ity of choice for melanoma in patients whose SLNBs indicate no metastases.

286 ded 1,340 patients with SLNB alone, 121 with SLNB+RLNR, 91 with ALND alone, and 263 with ALND+RLNR.

287 This study examines factors associated with SLNB use for clinically node-negative melanoma.

288 Compared with SLNB alone, completion ALND does not appear to improve o

289 axillary lymph node dissection compared with SLNB prior to NAC.

290 strength, and range of motion compared with SLNB.

291 lymphedema and pain after ALND compared with SLNB.

292 When compared with SLNB/ALND, SLNB alone results in a significantly lower r

293 hospital type, geographic area) factors with SLNB use.

294 Lymphatic mapping with SLNB has become widely accepted in the management of pat

295 ave shown significantly lower morbidity with SLNB than with ALND.

296 The cohort included 1,340 patients with SLNB alone, 121 with SLNB+RLNR, 91 with ALND alone, and

297 s treated with TAD and patients treated with SLNB in the median number of total lymph nodes removed (

298 illary surgery was performed with or without SLNB, TLNB, and/or axillary lymph node dissection (ALND)

299 NB and a cohort of eligible patients without SLNB.

300 an age 49.5 years (range: 14.4-85.0 years)], SLNB was positive for metastatic melanoma in 29 (6.7%) p