| 1. |
- Banys-Paluchowski, Maggie, et al.
(författare)
-
Localization Techniques for Non-Palpable Breast Lesions : Current Status, Knowledge Gaps, and Rationale for the MELODY Study (EUBREAST-4/iBRA-NET, NCT 05559411)
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Cancers. - : MDPI. - 2072-6694. ; 15:4
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Surgical excision of a non-palpable breast lesion requires a localization step. Among available techniques, wire-guided localization (WGL) is most commonly used. Other techniques (radioactive, magnetic, radar or radiofrequency-based, and intraoperative ultrasound) have been developed in the last two decades with the aim of improving outcomes and logistics.Methods: We performed a systematic review on localization techniques for non-palpable breast cancer.Results: For most techniques, oncological outcomes such as lesion identification and clear margin rate seem either comparable with or better than for WGL, but evidence is limited to small cohort studies for some of the devices. Intraoperative ultrasound is associated with significantly higher negative margin rates in meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Radioactive techniques were studied in several RCTs and are non-inferior to WGL. Smaller studies show higher patient preference towards wire-free localization, but little is known about surgeons’ and radiologists’ attitudes towards these techniques.Conclusions: Large studies with an additional focus on patient, surgeon, and radiologist preference are necessary. This review aims to present the rationale for the MELODY (NCT05559411) study and to enable standardization of outcome measures for future studies.Simple summaryMost breast cancers are small and can be treated using breast-conserving surgery. Since these tumors are non-palpable, they require a localization step that helps the surgeon to decide which tissue needs to be removed. The oldest localization technique is a guidewire placed into the tumor before surgery, usually using ultrasound or mammography. Afterwards, the surgeon removes the tissue around the wire tip. However, this technique has several disadvantages: It can cause the patient discomfort, requires a radiologist or another professional specialized in breast diagnostics to perform the procedure shortly before surgery, and 15–20% of patients need a second surgery to completely remove the tumor. Therefore, new techniques have been developed but most of them have not yet been examined in large, prospective, multicenter studies. In this review, we discuss all available techniques and present the MELODY study that will investigate their safety, with a focus on patient, surgeon, and radiologist preference.
|
|
| 2. |
- Hartmann, Steffi, et al.
(författare)
-
Applicability of magnetic seeds for target lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in initially node-positive breast cancer patients: data from the AXSANA study
- 2023
-
Ingår i: BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT. - 0167-6806 .- 1573-7217. ; 202:3, s. 497-504
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PurposeCurrently, various techniques are available to mark and selectively remove initially suspicious axillary lymph nodes (target lymph nodes, TLNs) in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). To date, limited data are available on whether the use of magnetic seeds (MS) is suitable for localizing TLNs. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of MS in patients undergoing target lymph node biopsy (TLNB) or targeted axillary dissection (TAD) after NACT.MethodsProspective data from the ongoing multicentric AXSANA study were extracted from selected patients in whom the TLN had been marked with an MS before NACT and who were enrolled from June 2020 to June 2023. The endpoints of the analysis were the detection rate, the rate of lost markers, and the potential impairment on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessment.ResultsIn 187 patients from 27 study sites in seven countries, MS were placed into the TLN before NACT. In 151 of these, post-NACT surgery had been completed at the time of analysis. In 146 patients (96.0%), a TLN could successfully be detected. In three patients, the seed was removed but no lymphoid tissue was detected on histopathology. The rate of lost markers was 1.2% (2 out of 164 MS). In 15 out of 151 patients (9.9%), MRI assessment was reported to be compromised by MS placement.ConclusionMS show excellent applicability for TLNB/TAD when inserted before NACT with a high DR and a low rate of lost markers. Axillary MS can impair MRI assessment of the breast.
|
|
| 3. |
- Kaidar-Person, Orit, et al.
(författare)
-
The Lucerne Toolbox 2 to optimise axillary management for early breast cancer : a multidisciplinary expert consensus
- 2023
-
Ingår i: EClinicalMedicine. - 2589-5370. ; 61
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Clinical axillary lymph node management in early breast cancer has evolved from being merely an aspect of surgical management and now includes the entire multidisciplinary team. The second edition of the “Lucerne Toolbox”, a multidisciplinary consortium of European cancer societies and patient representatives, addresses the challenges of clinical axillary lymph node management, from diagnosis to local therapy of the axilla. Five working packages were developed, following the patients’ journey and addressing specific clinical scenarios. Panellists voted on 72 statements, reaching consensus (agreement of 75% or more) in 52.8%, majority (51%–74% agreement) in 43.1%, and no decision in 4.2%. Based on the votes, targeted imaging and standardized pathology of lymph nodes should be a prerequisite to planning local and systemic therapy, axillary lymph node dissection can be replaced by sentinel lymph node biopsy ( ± targeted approaches) in a majority of scenarios; and positive patient outcomes should be driven by both low recurrence risks and low rates of lymphoedema.
|
|
| 4. |
- Karakatsanis, Andreas, et al.
(författare)
-
Axillary Staging in the Setting of a Preoperative Diagnosis of Ductal Cancer In Situ (DCIS) : Results of an International Expert Panel and a Critical Guideline Performance Using Frequentist and Bayesian Analysis
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgical Oncology. - : Springer. - 1068-9265 .- 1534-4681. ; 27:Suppl. 2, s. S337-S338
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Background/Objective: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is not routine in DCIS. Guidelines suggest SLNB when there is high risk for underlying invasion (large size, high grade, symptomatic lesion) or for detection failure (e.g., after mastectomy). However, guidelines and current practice patterns are inconsistent. Moreover, whilst SLNB is thought to be feasible and accurate after wide local excision (WLE), there is less consensus to support its use after oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS), which can reduce the need for mastectomy (Mx) and is gradually adopted as standard of care. The study aim was to assess if guidelines or individualized assessment result in optimal selection of patients for upfront SLNB.Methods: A panel of 28 international experts (20 surgeons, 8 oncologists, Europe 20, USA 5, Asia/Australia 3) was formed, all blind to the identity of the others. They reviewed anonymized patient cases from the SentiNot study (n=184, m. age 60 years, DCIS m. size 4 cm, Grade 2/3= 36%/64%, mass lesions 13,4%, underlying invasion 24.5%) and answer if they would consider upfront SLNB and why. Consensus and majority were set to >75 and >50%. At the same time, 6 independent raters (4 surgeons, 2 oncologists) reviewed guidelines and assessed the same patient cases per each guideline. Accuracy in relation to underlying invasion was assessed by Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and Area Under the Curve (AUC) was reported. Agreement was investigated by kappa statistics and decision-making patterns by logistic multivariate regression and cluster analysis. To allow for flexibility and adaptation to current knowledge, both a frequentist and a Bayesian approach were undertaken. Priors were adjusted after a literature review regarding the factors that are commonly thought to be associated with higher risk for underlying invasion.Results: A total of 44,896 decisions were retrieved and analysed. The panel reached consensus/majority for upfront SLNB in 41.3/61.4%, whereas individual rates ranged from 11 to 100%. Agreement among panelists was low (kappa=0.37). In multivariate regression analysis for the entire panel, type of surgery was the most common determinant, (simple WLE=less, OPBCS=more and Mx=constant for SLNB), followed by symptomatic diagnosis and DCIS size. Most (26) members had a clear decision-making pattern regarding SLND, based mainly on DCIS size and type of surgery. Individual decision-making performed modestly in identifying patients with underlying invasion (AUC range 0,47-0,59), resulting mainly in overtreatment in 44-77% of patients. The panel performed similarly by majority (AUC 0,5) and by consensus (AUC 0,55) but “undertreated” 60-75% of patients with invasion, failing to identify them as "high-risk." After the recognition of different decision-making patterns, panelists were divided in subgroups with similar decision-making pattern. Analysis identified subgroups with difference in SLNB rate but not with better AUC. The disagreement among panelists in the same subgroups was significant, not only regarding which patients should undergo SLNB, but also on what factors that recommendation was based on. Eight guidelines with relevant recommendations were identified [USA (ASCO/NCCN), Europe (ESMO), Sweden, Denmark, UK, Netherlands and Italy, retrieval date May 2019]. Agreement among raters for each guideline separately varied (kappa: 0.23-0.9). Interpretation as to whether SLNB should be performed ranged widely (40-90%) and with varying concordance (32-88%). No guideline demonstrated accuracy (AUC range 0.45-0.55). Overtreatment risk was high (50-90%), whereas 10-50% of patients with invasion were not identified as “high- risk.” Agreement across guidelines was low (kappa=0.24), meaning that different patients had similar risk to be treated inaccurately, regardless of which guideline was examined.Conclusions: Individualized decision-making and guideline interpretation may be highly subjective and with low accuracy in terms of prediction of invasive disease, resulting in almost random risk for over- or undertreatment of the axilla in patients with DCIS. This suggests that current views and guidelines should be challenged. More accurate preoperative workup and novel techniques to allow for delayed SLNB may be of value in this setting.
|
|
