ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The aim of this study was to analyze feasibility of day surgery in breast cancer patients with breast conserving surgery and sentinel node biopsy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was a randomized controlled trial comparing day surgery with one night hospital stay in breast cancer patients with breast conserving surgery and sentinel node biopsy. A total of 40 patients with ⩽3-cm tumor and clinically N0 were randomized to one night stay group and 38 patients to day surgery group. Within discharge, patients and their relatives were given questionnaires in order to evaluate their experience regarding the duration of hospital stay. RESULTS: Randomized groups were similar regarding patient age and tumor stage. A total of 18 (47%) day surgery group patients were discharged the same day. The most common reason for overnight hospital stay was axillary clearance, 9 (24%). None of the patients in the day surgery group, but 2 patients in the overnight hospital stay group had re-operation due to complications. Perception and preference results were analyzed both according to randomization and actual treatment groups. Patients in both groups had rather similar experiences on the first postoperative day. Also, spouse's or relative's perception after discharge was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Day surgery was well received by the patients and their relatives. Day surgery appears as feasible in patients with breast conservation and sentinel node biopsy.
Subject(s)
Ambulatory Surgical Procedures , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Mastectomy, Segmental/methods , Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy , Adult , Aged , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Feasibility Studies , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Staging , Patient Safety , Patient Satisfaction , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
AIMS: The aim of the study was to estimate the prevalence of and risk factors for non-sentinel node (NSN) involvement in breast cancer patients with sentinel node (SN) micrometastases. METHODS: Eighty-four patients with SN micrometastases were included. Both the SN and NSN were examined using serial sectioning and immunohistohemistry. Various indices were evaluated as possible risk factors for NSN involvement. RESULTS: NSN involvement was found in 22/84 patients. The median size of the NSN metastases was 1.25 mm (0.01-12 mm). The NSN metastases were larger than 2 mm in 8 patients and smaller than 0.2 mm in 6 patients. NSN involvement was observed in 14/35 patients with metastatic findings in all removed SN. Three of the 23 patients with 2 or 3 tumour negative SN had NSN metastases. None of the 12 patients with 4 or more uninvolved SN had NSN metastases. NSN involvement could not excluded by other patient, tumour or sentinel node related factors. CONCLUSIONS: Every fourth patient will have residual disease in the axilla, 10% even large metastases, if axillary clearance is omitted in patients with SN micrometastases. The risk of NSN involvement seems negligible in patients with a single SN micrometastasis and four or more healthy SN harvested.
