Abstract
Background: Recent advances in technology and the subsequent development of minimally invasive surgical techniques have heralded a new era in the surgical treatment of breast cancer. The dilemma of how to train surgeons in new technologies requires teaching, certification, and outcomes reporting in a non-threatening and non–economically damaging manner. This study examines 700 cases of lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy for breast cancer and documents surgeon-specific and institution-specific learning curves.
Methods: Seven hundred cases of lymphatic mapping and SLN biopsy were examined. All procedures were performed using a combination of vital blue dye and radiolabeled sulfur colloid. Learning curves were generated for each surgeon as a plot of failure rate versus number of cases.
Results: Examination of the learning curves in this study demonstrates similar characteristics. Following a high initial failure rate, there is a rapid decrease after the first twenty cases. The learning curve, representing the mean of the five surgeons’ experience, indicates that 23 cases and 53 cases are required to achieve success rates of 90% and 95%, respectively.
Conclusions: The initial reports regarding lymphatic mapping combined with this experience of 700 cases confirm the presence of a significant learning curve. Although this procedure may have an inherent failure rate, it is important to identify those factors that are under the control of the surgeon and, therefore, subject to improvement. We believe that these data provide surgeons performing lymphatic mapping and SLN biopsy with a new paradigm for assessing their skill and adequacy of training.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
US Census Bureau, Population Division, Series P-25.
Kosary CL, Ries LAG, Hankey BF, et al. 1995 SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973–1992: Tables and Graphs. National Cancer Institute, et al. NIH Pub. No, et al.: Bethesda, MD 95–2789
Way LW, et al. 1996; General surgery in evolution: technology and competence. Am J Surg 171:2–9
Geis WP, Kim HC, McAfee PC, et al. Synergistic benefits of combined technologies in complex, minimally invasive surgical procedures. Clinical experience and educational processes. Surg Endosc 1996;10:1025–8
Frazier TG, Copeland EM, Gallaher HS, Paulus DD Jr, White EC, et al. 1977; Prognosis and treatment in minimal breast cancer. Am J Surg 133:697–701
Silverstein MJ, Rosser RJ, Gierson ED, et al. Axillary lymph node dissection for intraductal carcinoma: is it indicated? Cancer 1987;59:1819–24
Balch CM, Singletary ES, Bland KI, et al. Clinical decision-making in early breast cancer. Ann Surg 1993;217:207–25
Moffatt FL, Senofsky GM, Davis K, et al. 1992; Axillary node dissection for early breast cancer: some is good but all is better. J Surg Oncol 51:8–13
Silverstein MJ, Gierson ED, Waisman JR, Senofsky GM, Colburn WJ, Gamagami P. Axillary lymph node dissection for TIa breast carcinoma: is it indicated? Cancer 1994;73:664–7
Fisher B, Wolmak N, Bauer M, et al. The accuracy of clinical nodal staging and of limited axillary dissection as a determinant of histologic nodal status in carcinoma of the breast. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1981;152:765–72
Cady B, et al. The need to reexamine axillary lymph node dissection in invasive breast cancer. Cancer 1994;73:505–8
Morton DL, Wen DR, Wong JH, et al. Technical details of intraoperative lymphatic mapping for early stage melanoma. Arch Surg 1992;127:392–9
Guiliano AE, Kirgan DM, Guenther JM, Morton DL, et al. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymphadenectomy for breast cancer. Ann Surg 1994;220:391–401
Krag DN, Weaver DL, Alex JC, et al. Surgical resection and radiolocalization of the sentinel lymph node in breast cancer using a gamma probe. Surg Oncol 1993;2:335–9
Albertini JJ, Lyman GH, Cox C, et al. 1996; Lymphatic mapping and sentinel node biopsy in the patient with breast cancer. JAMA 276:1818–22
Borgstein PJ, Pijpers R, Comans EF, et al. 1998; Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: Guidelines and pitfalls of lymphoscintigraphy and gamma probe detection. J Am Coll Surg 186:275–83
Barnwell JM, Arredondo MA, Kollmorgen D, et al. Sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 1998;5:126–30
Schreiber RH, Pendas S, Ku NN, Reintgen DS, Shons AR, Berman C, Boulware D, Cox CE, et al. Microstaging of breast cancer patients using cytokeratin staining of the sentinel lymph node. Ann Surg 1999;6:95–101
Giuliano AE, Jones RC, Brennan M, et al. 1997; Sentinel lymphadenectomy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 15:2345–50
Simmons AJ, Anthone GJ, Ortega AE, et al. Laparoscopic-assisted colectomy learning curve. Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38:600–3
Senagore AJ, Luchtefeld MA, Mackeigan JM. What is the learning curve for laparoscopic colectomy? Am Surg 1995;61:681–5
Wu JS, Dunnegan DL, Luttmann DR, et al. 1998; The evolution and maturation of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an academic ractice. J Am Coll Surg 186:554–61
Cox CE, Bass SS, Ku N, et al. Sentinel lymphadenectomy: A safe answer to less axillary surgery. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference, St, et al. Gallen, Switzerland, February 25–28, 1998; The European Journal of Cancer, Adjuvant Therapy of Breast Cancer, VI, vol 152, 1998.
Cox CE, Pendas S, Cox JM, et al. Guidelines for sentinel node biopsy and lymphatic mapping of patients with breast cancer. Ann Surg 1998;227: 645–53.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cox, C.E., Bass, S.S., Boulware, D. et al. Implementation of New Surgical Technology: Outcome Measures for Lymphatic Mapping of Breast Carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 6, 553–561 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10434-999-0553-y
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10434-999-0553-y