-
BJS Open Mar 2022Axillary lymph node status remains the most powerful prognostic indicator in invasive breast cancer. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a non-invasive disease and does... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Axillary lymph node status remains the most powerful prognostic indicator in invasive breast cancer. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a non-invasive disease and does not spread to axillary lymph nodes. The presence of an invasive component to DCIS mandates nodal evaluation through sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). Quantification of the necessity of upfront SLNB for DCIS requires investigation. The aim was to establish the likelihood of having a positive SLNB (SLNB+) for DCIS and to establish parameters predictive of SLNB+.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed as per the PRISMA guidelines. Prospective studies only were included. Characteristics predictive of SLNB+ were expressed as dichotomous variables and pooled as odds ratios (o.r.) and associated 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i.) using the Mantel-Haenszel method.
RESULTS
Overall, 16 studies including 4388 patients were included (mean patient age 54.8 (range 24 to 92) years). Of these, 72.5 per cent of patients underwent SLNB (3156 of 4356 patients) and 4.9 per cent had SLNB+ (153 of 3153 patients). The likelihood of having SLNB+ for DCIS was less than 1 per cent (o.r. <0.01, 95 per cent c.i. 0.00 to 0.01; P < 0.001, I2 = 93 per cent). Palpable DCIS (o.r. 2.01, 95 per cent c.i. 0.64 to 6.24; P = 0.230, I2 = 0 per cent), tumour necrosis (o.r. 3.84, 95 per cent c.i. 0.85 to 17.44; P = 0.080, I2 = 83 per cent), and grade 3 DCIS (o.r. 1.34, 95 per cent c.i. 0.80 to 2.23; P = 0.270, I2 = 0 per cent) all trended towards significance in predicting SLNB+.
CONCLUSION
While aggressive clinicopathological parameters may guide SLNB for patients with DCIS, the absolute and relative risk of SLNB+ for DCIS is less than 5 per cent and 1 per cent, respectively. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are required to establish fully the necessity of SLNB for patients diagnosed with DCIS.
REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021284194 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/).
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Axilla; Breast Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating; Female; Humans; Lymphatic Metastasis; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy; Young Adult
PubMed: 35380620
DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrac022 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Oct 2022ΟBJECTIVE: This study aimed at comparing survival outcomes between systematic axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) vs sentinel lymph node and axillary lymph node... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
ΟBJECTIVE: This study aimed at comparing survival outcomes between systematic axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) vs sentinel lymph node and axillary lymph node dissection only if sentinel positive (SLN ± ALND) in early-stage, clinically node-negative breast cancer patients. ΜETHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to PRISMA guidelines was performed. Included studies were prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing survival outcomes of ALND vs. SLN ± ALND in early-stage, node-negative breast cancer patients. Patients enrolled were only those with tumor size lower than 4 cm, clinically negative nodes and treated with breast-conservative surgery. Primary endpoints were locoregional recurrence, overall death and cancer-related death. RESULTS: There were four studies included in the analysis, enrolling overall 2982 patients, of which 1494 in ALND arm and 1488 in the SLN ± ALND arm. No statistically significant difference was observed in locoregional recurrence, breast cancer-related death and overall death. Locoregional recurrence was observed in 2.8% (ALND) vs. 4.1% (SLND ± ALND), (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.20-2.30). Overall death rate was 7.0% vs. 6.8% respectively, (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73-1.39, I = 28.7%). Breast cancer-related death was 3.6% vs. 3.5%, respectively (SLN ± ALND), (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.70-1.78, I = 0%). No statistically significant difference was observed in any of secondary study outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic axillary axillary lymph node dissection provides no survival benefit compared with sentinel lymph node dissection for early-stage clinically node-negative breast cancer patients.
Topics: Axilla; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Lymph Nodes; Lymphatic Metastasis; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Sentinel Lymph Node; Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy
PubMed: 35249123
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-022-06458-8 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Oct 2022Management of regional lymph nodes in breast cancer recurrence has been heterogeneous. To facilitate clinical practice, this review aims to give an overview on the... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Management of regional lymph nodes in breast cancer recurrence has been heterogeneous. To facilitate clinical practice, this review aims to give an overview on the prognosis, staging and operative management of (inapparent) regional lymph nodes.
METHODS
Current national and international guidelines are reviewed and a structured search of the literature between Jan 1, 1999 and Feb 1, 2021 on the repeat sentinel node biopsy (re-SNB) procedure was performed.
RESULTS
Positive regional lymph nodes in recurrent breast cancer indicate a poorer outcome with axillary recurrences being the most favorable tumor site among all nodal regions. Most preferred staging method is ultrasound ± guided biopsy. PET-CT, scintimammography, SPECT-CT may improve visualization of affected lymph nodes outside the axilla. Concerning operative management 30 articles on re-SNB were identified with a mean harvesting rate of 66.4%, aberrant drainage and aberrant metastasis in 1/3 of the cases. Total rate of metastasis is 17.9%. After previous axillary dissection (ALND) the re-SNB has a significantly lower harvesting rate and higher aberrant drainage and aberrant metastasis rate. The prognostic outcome after re-SNB has been favorable.
CONCLUSION
Nodal status in recurrent disease has prognostic value. The choice of operative management of clinically inapparent regional lymph nodes during local recurrence should be based on the previous nodal staging method. Patients with previous ALND should be spared a second systematic ALND. Re-SNB or no axillary surgery at all are possible alternatives. Lymphoscintigraphy may be performed to identify extraaxillary drainage. However, for definite recommendations randomized controlled studies are heavily needed.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Lymph Nodes; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography; Prognosis; Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy
PubMed: 35122159
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-021-06352-9 -
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official... Mar 2022The call to integrate prospective surveillance for lymphedema into cancer care pathways is building momentum to enable early intervention and prevent the progression of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The call to integrate prospective surveillance for lymphedema into cancer care pathways is building momentum to enable early intervention and prevent the progression of the condition. We offer a critical evaluation of the literature on prospective surveillance and early management for cancer-related lymphedema and evaluate the effect of such programs in preventing chronic lymphedema (CRD42019137965).
METHODS
Five databases and two registries were searched for randomized controlled trials or observational studies that assessed the incidence or prevalence of lymphedema associated with participation in a prospective surveillance program, published until February 26, 2021. Numbers triggered for early lymphedema management, resolved, and chronic lymphedema were extracted. Pooled relative risk (trials) and pooled rate (cumulative incidence; observational studies) of chronic lymphedema was calculated. Subgroup analyses assessed the effect of study design, length of follow-up, and extent of axillary surgery.
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies were included, of which 21 studies evaluated breast cancer-related arm lymphedema (BCRaL). Participation in prospective surveillance with early management reduced the risk of chronic BCRaL versus usual care (relative risk 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.95; two randomized controlled trials; N = 106). The pooled rate of chronic BCRaL was 4% (95% CI, 3 to 6; 15 observational studies; N = 3,545), and 6% (95% CI, 4 to 9) when restricted to participants with axillary lymph node dissection (12 studies; N = 1,527).
CONCLUSION
The findings suggest that participation in prospective surveillance with early management reduces the risk of chronic BCRaL. Only a minority of patients at high risk of lymphedema because of axillary surgery developed chronic lymphedema. More robust research is needed to determine whether prospective surveillance with early management can reduce the risk of chronic lymphedema, particularly among cancer survivors other than breast cancer.
Topics: Axilla; Breast Cancer Lymphedema; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Lymphedema; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 35077194
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.21.01681 -
JAMA Oncology Apr 2022Extramammary Paget disease (EMPD) is a frequently recurring malignant neoplasm with metastatic potential that presents in older adults on the genital, perianal, and...
IMPORTANCE
Extramammary Paget disease (EMPD) is a frequently recurring malignant neoplasm with metastatic potential that presents in older adults on the genital, perianal, and axillary skin. Extramammary Paget disease can precede or occur along with internal malignant neoplasms.
OBJECTIVE
To develop recommendations for the care of adults with EMPD.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
A systematic review of the literature on EMPD from January 1990 to September 18, 2019, was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Libraries. Analysis included 483 studies. A multidisciplinary expert panel evaluation of the findings led to the development of clinical care recommendations for EMPD.
FINDINGS
The key findings were as follows: (1) Multiple skin biopsies, including those of any nodular areas, are critical for diagnosis. (2) Malignant neoplasm screening appropriate for age and anatomical site should be performed at baseline to distinguish between primary and secondary EMPD. (3) Routine use of sentinel lymph node biopsy or lymph node dissection is not recommended. (4) For intraepidermal EMPD, surgical and nonsurgical treatments may be used depending on patient and tumor characteristics, although cure rates may be superior with surgical approaches. For invasive EMPD, surgical resection with curative intent is preferred. (5) Patients with unresectable intraepidermal EMPD or patients who are medically unable to undergo surgery may receive nonsurgical treatments, including radiotherapy, imiquimod, photodynamic therapy, carbon dioxide laser therapy, or other modalities. (6) Distant metastatic disease may be treated with chemotherapy or individualized targeted approaches. (7) Close follow-up to monitor for recurrence is recommended for at least the first 5 years.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Clinical practice guidelines for EMPD provide guidance regarding recommended diagnostic approaches, differentiation between invasive and noninvasive disease, and use of surgical vs nonsurgical treatments. Prospective registries may further improve our understanding of the natural history of the disease in primary vs secondary EMPD, clarify features of high-risk tumors, and identify superior management approaches.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Imiquimod; Paget Disease, Extramammary; Prospective Studies; Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy; Skin Neoplasms
PubMed: 35050310
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.7148 -
Annals of Surgical Oncology May 2022Evidence on the accuracy of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for patients with breast cancer is inconclusive. This study reviewed the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Evidence on the accuracy of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for patients with breast cancer is inconclusive. This study reviewed the real-world data to determine the acceptability of SLNB after NAT.
METHODS
The study searched for articles in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. The primary outcomes were the identification rate for sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) and the false-negative rate (FNR) for SLNB. The study also evaluated the FNR in subgroups defined by tumor stage, nodal stage, hormone receptor status, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 status, tumor response, mapping technique, and number of SLNs removed.
RESULTS
The study retrieved 61 prospective and 18 retrospective studies with 10,680 initially cN± patients. The pooled estimate of the identification rate was 0.906 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.891-0.922), and the pooled FNR was 0.118 (95 % CI, 0.103-0.133). In subgroup analysis, the FNR was significantly higher for the patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative status and fewer than three SLNs removed. The FNR did not differ significantly between the patients with and those without complete tumor response. Among the patients with initial clinical negative axillary lymph nodes, the incidence of node metastasis was 26.8 % (275/1041) after NAT.
CONCLUSION
Real-world evidence indicates that the FNR of SLNB after NAT in breast cancer is 11.8 %, exceeding only slightly the commonly adopted threshold of 10 %. The FNR is significantly higher for patients with ER-negative status and removal of fewer than three SLNs. Using a dual tracer and removing at least three SLNs may increase the accuracy of SLNB after NAT.
Topics: Axilla; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Lymph Nodes; Lymphatic Metastasis; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Sentinel Lymph Node; Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy
PubMed: 35018590
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-11297-z -
British Medical Bulletin Dec 2021Winged scapula (WS) is a critical complication of axillary surgery in patients treated for breast cancer, and is associated with pain, impairment of the upper... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Winged scapula (WS) is a critical complication of axillary surgery in patients treated for breast cancer, and is associated with pain, impairment of the upper extremity's function and poor performance in daily activities.
SOURCES OF DATA
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following the PRISMA guidelines. Two independent reviewers searched PubMed, Embase and Virtual Health Library databases from January 1, 2000 to December 1, 2020. Clinical studies evaluating the diagnosis and epidemiology of WS among breast cancer surgery (BCS) patients were included.
AREAS OF AGREEMENT
The diagnosis of WS relies almost entirely on physical assessment. Studies have suggested a high variability in the report of the incidence of WS given the subjectivity of its diagnosis, and the different criteria used during clinical assessment.
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
The diagnosis of WS in BCS patients remains a challenge given the lack of standardized diagnostic protocols. Physical examination cannot rely on one manoeuvre only, as it may overlook patients with subtle injuries or overweight and contributing to the underreporting of its incidence.
GROWING POINTS
BCS patients undergoing axillary lymph node dissection experience a significantly higher incidence of WS than those undergoing sentinel lymph node dissection. The global incidence of WS after BCS is 16.79%. Additionally, the anterior flexion test and the push-up test are the most commonly performed diagnostic manoeuvers.
AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH
Further studies should aim for objective diagnostic tests, especially when the condition is not evident.
Topics: Axilla; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Incidence; Lymph Node Excision; Scapula; Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy
PubMed: 34471931
DOI: 10.1093/bmb/ldab021 -
Breast Cancer (Tokyo, Japan) Jan 2022The effectiveness of sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping and biopsy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in axillary lymph node staging of breast cancer (BCa) patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Sentinel lymph node mapping in breast cancer patients following neoadjuvant chemotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis about head to head comparison of cN0 and cN + patients.
PURPOSE
The effectiveness of sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping and biopsy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in axillary lymph node staging of breast cancer (BCa) patients with initial clinical node positive status (cN +) compared to clinical node negative status (cN0) is not yet known. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the accuracy of SLN mapping following NAC in cN + and cN0 BCa patients.
METHODS
PubMed and Scopus were comprehensively reviewed to retrieve all the studies that performed SLN mapping/biopsy and standard axillary lymph node dissection on cN0 and cN + BCa patients following NAC. Pooled detection and false negative rates for N0 and N + patients including 95% confidence interval values (95% CI) were evaluated. Odds ratio (OR) and risk difference (RD) of SLN detection failure and false negative results were compared between two groups.
RESULTS
A total of 27 articles were included for SLN detection rate evaluation and 17 for false negative assessment. The OR and RD of detection failure in N + group compared with N0 group following NAC were 2.22 (p = 0.00, 95% CI 1.4-3.4) and 4% (p = 0.00, 95% CI 2-6%), respectively. The OR and RD of false negative rate were 1.6 (p = 0.01, 95% CI 1-2.6) and 8% (p = 0.02, 95% CI 1-14%), respectively.
CONCLUSION
SLN mapping in BCa patients following NAC shows high risk of detection failure and high false negative rate of SLN biopsy in cN + patients. In comparison with cN0 BCa patients, SLN mapping and biopsy after NAC was associated with almost two times higher odds of detection failure and false negative results in cN + patients; therefore, this method should not be recommended in this group of patients.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Female; Humans; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Sentinel Lymph Node; Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy
PubMed: 34341902
DOI: 10.1007/s12282-021-01280-7 -
Breast Cancer (Tokyo, Japan) Nov 20211. To systematically analyse studies comparing survival outcomes between axillary lymph-node dissection (ALND) and axilla observation (Obs), in women with low-risk,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
1. To systematically analyse studies comparing survival outcomes between axillary lymph-node dissection (ALND) and axilla observation (Obs), in women with low-risk, clinically node-negative breast cancer. 2. To consider results in the context of current axillary surgery de-escalation trials and studies.
METHODS
9 eligible studies were identified, 6 RCTs and 3 non-randomized studies (4236 women in total). Outcomes assessed: overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The logged (ln) hazard ratio (HR) was calculated and used as the statistic of interest. Data was grouped by follow-up.
RESULTS
Meta-analyses found no significant difference in OS at 5, 10 and 25-years follow-up (5-year ln HR = 0.08, 95% CI - 0.09, 0.25, 10-year ln HR = 0.33, 95% CI - 0.07, 0.72, 25-year ln HR = 0.00, 95% CI - 0.18, 0.19). ALND caused improvement in DFS at 5-years follow-up (ln HR = 0.16, 95% CI 0.03, 0.29), this was not demonstrated at 10 and 25-years follow-up (10-year ln HR = 0.07, 95% CI - 0.09, 0.23, 25-year ln HR = - 0.03, 95% CI - 0.21, 0.16). Studies supporting ALND for DFS at 5-years follow-up had greater relative chemotherapy use in the ALND cohort.
CONCLUSION
ALND does not cause a significant improvement in OS in women with clinically node-negative breast cancer. ALND may improve DFS in the short term by tailoring a proportion of patients towards chemotherapy. Our evidence suggests that when the administration of systemic therapy is balanced between the two arms, axillary de-escalation studies will likely find no difference in OS or DFS.
Topics: Aged; Breast Neoplasms; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Lymphatic Metastasis; Middle Aged; Progression-Free Survival; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 34241800
DOI: 10.1007/s12282-021-01273-6 -
Breast Cancer (Tokyo, Japan) Nov 2021This meta-analysis was designed to assess the association between two loco-regional therapies, regional nodal irradiation (RNI) and axillary lymph node dissection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This meta-analysis was designed to assess the association between two loco-regional therapies, regional nodal irradiation (RNI) and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), and breast cancer-related lymphoedema (BCRL).
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Science Direct, Embase, and BMJ databases for clinical studies published between January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2020, which assessed risk factors and incidence/prevalence of BCRL. Two investigators independently selected articles to extract relative data and calculate corresponding exact binomial 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In total, 93 articles were reviewed, from which 19 studies were selected. The extracted data were pooled using a random-effects mixed model.
RESULTS
The incidence of lymphedema in the selected studies ranged from 3% to 36.7%, with a pooled incidence of 14.29% (95% CI 13.79-14.79). The summary odds ratio/risk ratio (OR/RR) of ALND vs. no-ALND was 3.67 (95% CI 2.25-5.98) with a heterogeneity (I) of 81% (P < 0.00001). After excluding the studies with an abnormally high risk of lymphedema from self-reporting, the summary hazard ratio (HR) was 2.99 (95% CI 2.44-3.66) with no heterogeneity (I = 0%, P = 0.83). The summary OR/RR of patients with vs. without radiotherapy (RT) was 1.82 (95% CI 0.92-3.59), but the RR of RT to breast/chest vs. both axillary and supraclavicular areas was 2.66 (95% CI 0.73-9.70).
CONCLUSION
Regional nodal irradiation has a significantly higher risk for developing lymphedema than irradiation of the breast/chest wall. Axillary dissection and axillary RT have a similar risk for early-onset of breast cancer-related lymphoedema, although the risk trends higher for axillary dissection.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Incidence; Lymph Node Excision; Lymphatic Metastasis; Lymphedema; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy
PubMed: 34106427
DOI: 10.1007/s12282-021-01263-8