乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检的临床应用研究

目的探讨乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检术（SLNB）在临床应用中的价值。方法应用亚甲蓝染色法对58例乳腺癌患者先行SLNB，随后行乳腺癌常规外科手术。结果58例患者中前哨淋巴结（SLN）检出率为93．1％，准确率为96．3％。假阴性率为5．71％，假阳性率为0；操作者的学习曲线、患者的年龄、原发肿瘤的部位影响SLN的检出率（P〈0．05）；肿瘤的大小、病理类型不影响SLN的检出率（P〉0．05）。结论乳腺癌SLNB能够准确地预测乳腺癌患者腋窝淋巴结（ALN）的转移情况。     

乳腺癌前哨淋巴结检出率的影响因素

为探讨乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检（SLNB）的应用价值，分析影响检出率的相关临床因素。笔者采用在乳腺肿瘤所在象限的乳晕皮下组织注射亚甲蓝，先行SLNB，随后行乳腺癌改良根治术或保乳手术。结果示50例乳腺癌患者中SLN检出率为94.0%，假阴性率19.0%，准确性91.5%，敏感度80.9%；原发肿瘤位于乳腺外上象限者，术前或术中切片确诊与SLN检出有关（P<0.05）；患者年龄、术前是否化疗、肿块大小与SLN检出率无关（P>0.05）。提示SLN可以准确预测原发乳腺癌患者腋窝淋巴结转移状态。     

吲哚氰绿荧光显影联合亚甲蓝与核素联合亚甲蓝在新辅助化疗后前哨淋巴结活检中的效果对比

目的探讨吲哚氰绿(ICG)联合亚甲蓝与核素联合亚甲蓝在新辅助化疗后前哨淋巴结活检(SLNB)中的效果差异。方法回顾性收集2017年6月到2019年2月期间于青岛大学附属医院乳腺病诊疗中心完成新辅助化疗后行SLNB并同时行腋窝淋巴结清扫(ALND)的乳腺癌患者77例,其中通过ICG+亚甲蓝示踪行SLNB的乳腺癌患者46例(ICG+亚甲蓝组),通过核素+亚甲蓝示踪行SLNB的乳腺癌患者31例(核素+亚甲蓝组)。比较2组患者的示踪效果。结果 77例患者中至少检出1枚前哨淋巴结(SLN)者73例,SLN检出率为94.80%,其中ICG+亚甲蓝组43例,核素+亚甲蓝组30例。ICG+亚甲蓝组患者的NAC后前哨淋巴结检出率为93.48%(43/46),平均检出SLN 2.32枚/例,灵敏度为82.61%(19/23),假阴性率为17.39%(4/23),准确率为90.70%(39/43)。核素+亚甲蓝组的SLN检出率为96.77%(30/31),平均检出SLN 2.6枚/例,灵敏度为83.33%(10/12),假阴性率为16.67%(2/12),准确率为93.33%(28/30)。2组的SLN检出率、检出数目、灵敏度、假阴性率及准确率比较差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 ICG联合亚甲蓝与核素联合亚甲蓝在新辅助化疗后的乳腺癌SLNB中具有相似的SLN检出率、SLN检出数目、灵敏度、准确率及假阴性率,可以推广实施。     

乳腺癌前哨淋巴结亚甲蓝示踪活检术的临床价值

采用 2 %亚甲蓝作示踪剂 ,经根治术同一切口 ,对 85例I～IIIa期乳腺癌患者进行前哨淋巴结活检 (SLNB)。结果示SLNB的成功检出率为 90 .6% (77/85 ) ,准确性为 96.1% (74/77) ,假阴性率为 3 .9% (3 /77)。SLN的转移阳性率为 3 6.4% (2 8/77) ,阴性率为 63 .6% (4 9/77) ,与腋窝淋巴结 (ALN )的转移阳性率 (3 8.8% ,3 3 /85 )和阴性率 (61.2 % ,5 2 /85 )均无统计学差异 (P >0 .0 5 )。SLNB失败的 8例中 ,原发肿瘤位于内上象限 4例 ,中央部 2例 ,外下和外上象限各 1例。假阴性 3例均为T2 N1 期 ,原发肿瘤位于外上象限 ,经洞式探查发现腋尖组 (III组 )淋巴结均有转移。提示应用亚甲蓝示踪的SLNB ,可准确预测乳腺癌ALN的病理学状态。洞式探查III组淋巴结 ,可以弥补SLNB出现假阴性的不足     

影响染料法乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检成功率的一些因素

目的探讨影响染料法乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检(sentinel lymph node biopsy,SLNB)成功率的因素及其可能机制.方法172例T1、T2乳腺癌病人,其中术前腋窝触及肿大淋巴结者16例.全身麻醉后,采用1%异硫蓝5 ml或美蓝4 ml,随机注入乳晕或肿瘤周围后行SLNB;然后作根治术或改良根治术,并将全部标本送病理学检查.比较病人年龄、腋窝淋巴结肿大、术前活检、肿瘤大小、组织类型、染料、注射部位、训练曲线等因素对SLNB检出率的影响.结果在术前触及腋窝淋巴结肿大的16例中,前哨淋巴结(sentinel lymph node,SLN)的检出率明显低于未触及者(x2=18355,P=0.000),而假阴性率则明显增高(X2=12.205,P=0.000).位于外上象限的肿瘤SLNB前行切除活检,SLN的检出率显著降低(x2=5.690,P=0.017).前30例SLN的检出率明显低于后142例(X2=5.807,P=0.016)病人的年龄、肿瘤位置、肿瘤大小、组织类型、染料以及注射部位等因素对SLNB成功率影响不大(P＞0.05).结论术前腋窝淋巴结肿大及SLNB前行外上象限肿瘤切除活检可明显影响SLNB的成功率,其原因可能与乳腺至腋窝之间的淋巴引流途径改变有关.通过训练可提高SLN的检出率.     

前哨淋巴结活检在乳腺癌中的临床应用

目的 探讨术中前哨淋巴结（sentinel lymph node,SLN）定位和活检（SLNB）对预测乳腺癌腋窝淋巴结（axillary lymph node,ALN）转移的准确性.方法 对48例乳腺癌患者术前10min用亚甲蓝注射液4ml注射到肿瘤周围或活检腔的正常乳腺组织,进行SLN定位和活检,然后行乳腺癌改良根治术.结果 SLNB的检出成功率为95.8%,准确率为97.8%,假阴性率3.0%,假阳性率为0.结论 用亚甲蓝作SLN定位进行SLNB能准确预测乳腺癌ALN转移状态.     

���ٰ�ǰ���ܰͽ�ķֲ������ڻ�����е�����

目的　探讨乳腺癌前哨淋巴结 (SLN )的分布及其在活检中的意义。方法　用 1%美蓝染色的方法 ,对2 72例可手术乳腺癌病人术中行前哨淋巴结活检 (SLNB) ,分析SLN的分布与病人的年龄、肥胖指数、乳房大小以及肿瘤的大小、部位和腋窝淋巴结有无转移的关系。结果　 (1)SLN检出率 90 1%,假阴性率 9 8%,准确率90 2 %。 (2 )SLN位于腋下群为 91 2 %,腋中群为 8 0 %,腋上群为 0 8%。 (3)肿瘤位于外侧象限者 ,SLN位于腋下群为 97%,位于腋中群为 3%;肿瘤位于内侧象限者 ,SLN位于腋下群为 74%,位于腋中上群为 2 6 %,(P <0 0 5 )。 (4)肿瘤位于乳房外侧象限的SLN检出率为 96 3%,肿瘤位于内侧者检出率 76 5 %(P <0 0 1)。 (5 )肿瘤位于乳房内侧象限的SLN假阴性率为 3%,肿瘤位于外侧象限者为 12 2 %(P <0 0 5 )。结论　 90 %以上的乳腺癌SLN位于腋下群 ,尤其是肿瘤位于乳房外侧象限者。乳房内侧乳腺癌 ,有 1/3的SLN位于腋中、上群。SLN假阴性多见于肿瘤位于乳房外侧象限者。     

美蓝染色法乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检临床应用研究

目的探讨美蓝染色法在乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检(sentinel lymph node biopsy,SLNB)中的应用价值。方法以68例可手术乳腺癌患者作为研究对象,临床体检腋窝淋巴结阴性,均单独采用美蓝作为前哨淋巴结(sentinel lymph node,SLN)示踪剂。结果全组患者共检出SLN 60例78枚。检出后行乳腺癌改良根治术60例,乳腺区段切除+腋窝淋巴结(axillary lymph node,ALN)切除术8例。60例中22例SLN病理结果为阳性,转移淋巴结数28枚,SLN转移率为35.9%(28/78)。全组患者共检出ALN805枚,其中24例病理结果阳性。SLNB的检出率为88.2%(60/68),60例成功检出患者中,38例SLN阴性,其中经病理检查ALN阳性(假阴性)者1例,8例未找到SLN患者中亦有1例ALN阳性。SLNB灵敏度为91.7%,准确率为98.3%,假阴性率为8.3%,假阳性率为0。结论应用美蓝进行SLN的认定是安全可行的,并有利于简化手术方式,提高患者术后生活质量。     

纳米炭混悬液在乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检中的应用分析

目的研究纳米炭混悬液(卡纳琳)在乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检(sentinel lymph node biopsy,SLNB)中的应用价值。方法回顾性分析我院乳腺外科收治的124例乳腺癌患者的临床资料,将其中100例乳腺癌患者随机分成2组,实验组50例,以纳米炭混悬液作为示踪剂;对照组50例,以放射性核素联合美蓝作为示踪剂。全部患者SLNB后常规行腋窝淋巴结清扫术(axillary lymph node dissection,ALND)。术后检验其检出率、准确率、灵敏度、假阴性率。另24例患者以纳米炭混悬液示踪行SLNB后,如前哨淋巴结(SLN)阳性,则继续行ALND;如SLN阴性,则"保腋窝"。根据患者选择术式的不同对比其手术效果及预后。结果实验组与对照组患者前哨淋巴结检出率、准确率、灵敏度、假阴性率比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论纳米炭混悬液示踪SLNB可准确预测早期乳腺癌患者的淋巴结状态,较行ALND患者有更少的并发症。     

乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检中亚甲蓝与亚甲蓝、同位素联合示踪的比较研究

目的比较单用亚甲蓝或联合亚甲蓝及同位素示踪剂在乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检中的价值及研究影响前哨淋巴结活检准确性的因素。方法收集2005年3月至2006年7月期间行前哨淋巴结活检的164例乳腺癌患者,单用亚甲蓝示踪剂组104例,活检前乳晕旁皮下注射亚甲蓝2ml;亚甲蓝和同位素联合示踪剂组60例,术前肿瘤周围实质中4点注射^99m锝-硫胶体2mCi/4ml,经淋巴显像,术中在γ探测仪引导下行腋窝前哨淋巴结活检。结果前哨淋巴结总的检出率为97.0%（159/164）,准确性为95.0%（151/159）,假阴性率为14.0%（8/57）;联合组检出率、准确率、敏感性、阴性预测值高于亚甲蓝组,联合组的假阴性率为8.7%（2/23）,较亚甲蓝组17.7%的假阴性率为低（6/34）,但差异均无统计学意义（P=0.453）。亚甲蓝组平均每例检测出2.2枚前哨淋巴结,联合组为平均2.5枚（P=0.223）。前哨淋巴结数目≥3和〈3枚的患者假阴性率分别为0%和24.2%（8/33）（P=0.016）。联合组中发现73枚无蓝染仅有热点的前哨淋巴结,故同位素的应用将本组患者的检出率从85.0%（51/60）提高至98.3%（59/60）,假阴性率从21.7%（5/23）降低至8.7% （2/23）。结论在取得一定经验的情况下,亚甲蓝示踪与联合染料、同位素示踪可获得相似的前哨淋巴结检出率、准确率;同位素示踪剂的应用对亚甲蓝示踪起到很好的补充作用;前哨淋巴结检出越多,假阴性率越低。     

L选择素在乳腺癌前哨淋巴结的趋向性表达及其临床意义

目的:探讨L选择素(L-selectin)在乳腺癌前哨淋巴结(SLN)中的表达,分析乳腺癌SLN状况与L选择素表达的关系。方法:选择T1-2N0M0乳腺癌患者68例,以亚甲蓝为示踪剂先行前哨淋巴结活检术(SLNB),应用免疫组织化学法检测本组68例乳腺癌SLN,乳腺癌原发灶,癌旁乳腺组织以及20例III级不典型增生乳腺组织中L选择素的表达。结果:68例乳腺癌患者中SLN检出成功62例,检出率为91.17%(62/68),其中假阴性3例(3/32)。阳性SLN中L选择素阳性表达率明显高于乳腺癌组织、癌旁组织(均P<0.05)。SLN阳性患者其原发灶L选择素阳性表达率明显高于SLN阴性患者(P<0.05)。SLN及非前哨淋巴结(NSLN)均阳性患者其原发灶L选择素阳性表达率明显高于SLN及NSLN均阴性患者(P<0.001)。结论:L选择素在阳性SLN转移癌中表达增高,提示L选择素在乳腺癌细胞的淋巴结趋向性中起重要作用;SLN状态与L选择素阳性表达有密切关系,两者相结合分析可以更全面地反映乳腺癌转移规律及腋淋巴结状态。     

Decreased Identification Rate of Sentinel Lymph Node after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

We prospectively studied the feasibility of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy by comparing the identification rate and the false-negative rate (FNR) with the results obtained from the patients without chemotherapy. From October 2001 to March 2003, a total of 284 consecutive patients who underwent SLNB and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) at the Center for Breast Cancer, National Cancer Center were enrolled. Of the 284 patients, 54 underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to operation. The sentinel lymph node (SLN) was mapped by radioactive colloid alone or in combination with blue dye. All SLNs were evaluated by 2 mm serial sections after hematoxylin-eosin staining. The overall SLN identification rate was 91.9% (261/284): 72.2% (39/54) of the patients after chemotherapy and 96.5% (222/230) of the patients without chemotherapy. These results suggest that preoperative chemotherapy significantly affects lymphatic mapping (p< 0.001). Among the patients with chemotherapy, there were 3 false negatives in 39 successfully mapped tumors, yielding an FNR of 11.1% (3/27), a negative prediction value (NPV) of 80.0% (12/15), and an accuracy of 92.3% (36/39). There were 10 false negatives among 222 successfully detected patients without chemotherapy, yielding an FNR of 9.9% (10/101), an NPV of 92.4% (121/131), and an accuracy of 95.5% (212/222). These results were not statistically different when compared (p > 0.05). Although the SLN identification rate significantly decreased after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, SLNB could accurately predict axillary status. Thus SLNB can be an alternative to ALND even after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in cases of successful identification of the SLN.     

Can Methylene Blue Only Be Used in Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Breast Cancer?

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has become an accepted standard of care to stage the axilla for clinically node-negative early stage breast cancer. In experienced hands, studies have shown an acceptable rate of identification of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) with blue dye only. Lymphazurin is occasionally associated with severe allergic reaction, including anaphylaxis and death. The use of methylene blue alone as a method of identifying the SLN in breast cancer has been reported once previously in the literature. Methylene blue may be an acceptable alternative with fewer deleterious side effects. Medical records of patients, who underwent sentinel node mapping between September 2003 and March 2005 by two surgeons at an academic medical center were reviewed. SLN mapping was performed by periareolar injection of 5 cc of 1% methylene blue. All patients with positive SLNs underwent completion axillary node dissection. During the study period, 141 consecutive patients with clinically node-negative axillas and without evidence of inflammatory breast cancer underwent SLNB with injection of methylene blue only. A SLN was identified in 136 of 141 patients (96.5%). Thirty-three of 136 SLNs (24%) harbored metastatic disease. No cases of anaphylaxis were noted. In experienced hands, methylene blue alone is a highly sensitive method of detecting SLNs. Avoiding the greater frequency of allergic reactions seen with lymphazurin is an important advantage of methylene blue.     

A Comparative Validation of Primary Surgical Versus Post-neo-adjuvant Chemotherapy Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Stage III Breast Cancers

Introduction

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for staging N0 primary early breast cancers (EBC). Patients in developing countries mostly present with large (LOBC) or locally advanced cancers (LABC) and are treated with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Accuracy of SLNB in staging stage III N0 and post-NACT N0 patients is uncertain. This prospective validation study on LOBC/LABC patients compared the accuracy of SLNB between primary versus post-NACT surgery.

Materials and methods

Fifty T3/T4, N0 patients undergoing primary surgery (Group I) and 70 LOBC/LABC (index stage) treated with NACT and N0 at the time of surgery (Group II) were inducted. Validation SLNB was performed using low-cost methylene-blue and ^99mTc-Antimony colloid. SLN identification (IR) and false-negative (FNR) rates were compared between the groups. Sub-group analysis was done in Group II per index tumor and nodal stage to identify factors predicting SLN IR and FNR in post-NACT patients. SLN IR and FNR in both groups were compared with those in previously published SLN validation study and meta-analysis in EBC.

Results

Using combination of blue-dye and radio-colloid, post-NACT SLN IR and FNR (82.9, 13.5 %) were far inferior to T3/T4 primary surgery group (94, 7.7 %; p values 0.034, 0.041) and in EBC. SLN IR using blue-dye alone was dismally low in post-NACT LABCs. Factors predicting unidentified post-NACT SLN and false-negative SLNB included young age, LVI, skin infiltration, extra-nodal spread or N2a stage, and UOQ tumors.

Conclusions

Accuracy of SLNB in T3, N0 tumors undergoing primary surgery is comparable to that of SLNB for N0 EBC. In post-NACT patients, SLNB IR are lower and FNR are higher. Factors predictive of non-identification and false-negative SLNB include pre-NACT skin involvement (T4b), N2a stage or extra-nodal invasion and LVI, and to a lesser extent, young age and UOQ location of the tumor.

     

Comparison of vital dye-guided lymphatic mapping and dye plus gamma probe-guided sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer

The optimal technique for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is still debated. SLNB with peritumoral injection of Patent blue dye was performed in 129 clinically T1-T2 and N0 breast cancers in 127 patients (group A); it was later replaced by combined dye and radiocolloid-guided SLNB preceded by lymphoscintigraphy in 72 breast cancer patients (group B). This study compares these two methods. All patients underwent completion axillary dissection. Means of 1.4 and 1.3 SLNs were identified in groups A and B, respectively. The mean number of non-SLNs for the whole series was 14.9 (range 5-42). The first 53 cases of lymphatic mapping (dye only) comprised the institutional learning period during which the identification rate of at least 1 SLN in 30 consecutive attempts reached 90%. The identification rate for the subsequent 76 group A patients was 92%. The accuracy rate of SLNBs for overall axillary nodal status prediction and the false-negative rate for group A patients (after excluding the learning-phase cases) were 93% and 10%, respectively. All 72 group B cases had at least one SLN identified, and only one false-negative case occurred in this group (accuracy and false-negative rates of 99% and 3%, respectively). Both the dye-only and the combined SLNB methods are suitable for SLN identification, but the latter works better and results in higher accuracy, a higher negative predictive value, and a lower false-negative rate. It is therefore the method of choice.     

Methylene Blue Dye as an Alternative to Isosulfan Blue Dye for Sentinel Lymph Node Localization

Background: Our study describes the use of methylene blue dye as an alternative to isosulfan blue dye to identify the sentinel lymph node (SLN).Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of 112 breast cancer patients (113 axillae) who underwent SLN biopsy (SLNB) with methylene blue dye and ^99mTc-labeled sulfur colloid for SLN identification. All SLNs were submitted for intraoperative frozen section analysis, hematoxylin and eosin stain, and immunohistochemical evaluation. Patients with a pathologically negative SLN did not undergo further axillary lymph node dissection.Results: Of 112 patients who underwent SLNB, the SLN was identified in 107 (95.5%); 104 (92.8%) were identified by methylene blue dye. In a subset of 99 patients with recorded isotope status in relation to blue nodes, concordant identification with both dye and isotope was observed in 94 (94.9%). Of patients with identified SLNs, 32 (29.9%) of 107 contained metastatic disease, with 31 (96.9%) of 32 identified by methylene blue dye. The SLN was the only positive node in 18 (60.0%) of 30 patients.Conclusions: SLNB with methylene blue dye is an effective alternative to isosulfan blue dye for accurately identifying SLNs in breast cancer patients.Presented at the Society of Surgical Oncologys 55th Annual Cancer Symposium, Denver, Colorado, March 14–17, 2002.     

Are 3 sentinel nodes sufficient?

HYPOTHESIS: It has recently been proposed that only 3 sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) are required for an adequate SLN biopsy. Others have advocated removing all nodes that are blue, hot, at the end of a blue lymphatic channel, or palpably suspicious or that have radioactive counts of 10% or greater of the most radioactive SLN. Our objective was to determine the false-negative rate (FNR) associated with limiting SLN biopsy to 3 nodes. DESIGN: Multicenter prospective study. SETTING: Both academic and private practice. PATIENTS: A total of 4131 patients underwent SLN biopsy followed by completion axillary node dissection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The FNR associated with 3-node SLN biopsy. RESULTS: Of the 4131 patients in this study, an SLN was identified in 3882 (94.0%). The median number of SLNs identified was 2; more than 3 SLNs were removed in 738 patients (17.9%). Of the patients in whom a SLN was identified, 1358 (35.0%) were node positive. The overall FNR in this study was 7.7%. In 89.7% of node-positive patients, a positive SLN was found in the first 3 SLNs removed. If SLN biopsy had been limited to the first 3 nodes, the FNR would be 10.3% (P = .005 compared with removing >3 SLNs). The FNR increased with the strategy of limiting SLN biopsy to fewer SLNs (P<.001). CONCLUSION: Removing only 3 SLNs cannot be recommended, because it is associated with a substantially increased FNR.     

Predictors to Assess Non‐Sentinel Lymph Node Status in Breast Cancer Patients with Sentinel Lymph Node Metastasis

Abstract: The next step of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in breast cancer is to determine which patients need axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) following a positive SLNB. A prospective database of 239 patients who underwent SLNB followed by complete ALND at Keio University Hospital from January 2001 to June 2005 was reviewed. A total of 131 patients with one or more positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) were further analyzed. A univariate analysis showed a significant correlation between non‐SLN involvement and lymphatic invasion, vascular invasion, number of tumor‐involved SLNs, radioactivity of SLNs, and size of SLN metastasis (p = 0.0002, p = 0.004, p = 0.006, p = 0.04, p = 0.03, respectively). By multivariate analysis, lymphatic invasion and the number of tumor‐involved SLNs remained significant predictors of non‐SLN involvement. In breast cancer patients with a positive SLN, lymphatic invasion and the number of tumor‐involved SLNs were both independent predictors of non‐SLN involvement.     

联合吲哚菁绿荧光法与蓝染法行乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检的临床研究

目的:探讨联合应用吲哚菁绿(ICG)荧光示踪法与蓝染法行乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检(SLNB)的可行性。方法:选择2014年3月―2015年10月期间276例乳腺癌患者,其中131例患者应用ICG联合美蓝行SLNB(联合组),145例患者以美蓝为示踪剂行SLNB(美蓝组)。所有患者SLNB结束后均行I、II水平腋窝淋巴清扫。结果:两组基本临床资料差异无统计学意义(均P0.05);联合组前哨淋巴结(SLNs)检出率明显高于美蓝组(96.9 vs.89.7%,P=0.017),平均检出SLNs数目明显多于美蓝组(3.0枚vs.2.1枚,P=0.011);假阴性率低于美蓝组(7.1% vs.10.9%),但差异无统计学意义(P=0.813)。全组数据统计分析显示,SLNs检出个数≤2时的假阴性率明显高于SLNs检出个数≥3时假阴性率(17.5% vs.2.1%,P=0.033)。结论:ICG荧光示踪法联合蓝染法行乳腺癌SLNB相对于蓝染法有检出率高、SLNs平均检出个数多、淋巴管实时显像的优势,在不具备核素法广泛应用条件时推荐使用。