Axillary lymph node dissection on the run?

The standard approach of performing a completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) after a positive sentinel node for breast cancer patients is no longer generally accepted. This study applied the criterion of a 27% risk of having residual positive lymph nodes calculated by the MD Anderson nomo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Facts, views & vision in ObGyn views & vision in ObGyn, 2017-03, Vol.9 (1), p.45-49
Hauptverfasser: Maeseele, N, Faes, J, Van de Putte, T, Vlasselaer, J, de Jonge, E, Schobbens, J C, Deraedt, K, Debrock, G, Van de Putte, G
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 49
container_issue 1
container_start_page 45
container_title Facts, views & vision in ObGyn
container_volume 9
creator Maeseele, N
Faes, J
Van de Putte, T
Vlasselaer, J
de Jonge, E
Schobbens, J C
Deraedt, K
Debrock, G
Van de Putte, G
description The standard approach of performing a completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) after a positive sentinel node for breast cancer patients is no longer generally accepted. This study applied the criterion of a 27% risk of having residual positive lymph nodes calculated by the MD Anderson nomogram to perform a cALND. This 27% cut-off is based on the number of positive non-sentinels in the Z0011 trial. A cohort of 166 cN0, sentinel positive breast cancer patients was used to validate the MD Anderson nomogram. ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) analysis shows an AUC (Area Under the Curve) of 0.76 and an optimal cut-off at 34% risk of positive non- SLNs (sensitivity 86%, specificity 57%). The 27% cut-off has a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 41% to detect positive non-sentinels. In a second cohort (N= 114) the 27% cut-off criterion was prospectively applied and appeared to be practice changing. Although we take minimal risk to leave disease behind (2/166 patients >3 positive nodes), 30.7 % in the first cohort and 54.4 % of the patients in the second cohort could be spared a cALND. The Z0011 criteria would have had more impact, omitting 90% of the cALND, but leaves more disease behind. The impact of leaving disease behind on survival remains unanswered but is awaited by long term follow up of large prospective cohort studies.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5506769</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1920393252</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p196t-a42f9f63f22b4a3d764f041d5462b8b4f7bd844433dcfd0010a0bd0804d25493</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkE9LxDAQxXNQ3GXdryA9ilDI_6YXZVnUFRa87D0kTWIjbVKbVtxvb8RVdBiYwwy_9-adgSWGBJeQIrEA65ReYS6BKszqC7DAosIICboEN5sP33VqPBbdsR_aIkRjC-NTss3kYyhyT60txjncXYJzp7pk16e5AoeH-8N2V-6fH5-2m305oJpPpaLY1Y4Th7GmipiKU5dtGEY51kJTV2kjKKWEmMYZCBFUUBsoIDWY0ZqswO03dph1b01jwzSqTg6j77NNGZWX_zfBt_IlvkvGIK_4F-D6BBjj22zTJHufGpu_DDbOSaI6R1MTzHA-vfqr9Svykw_5BMZqYMc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1920393252</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Axillary lymph node dissection on the run?</title><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Maeseele, N ; Faes, J ; Van de Putte, T ; Vlasselaer, J ; de Jonge, E ; Schobbens, J C ; Deraedt, K ; Debrock, G ; Van de Putte, G</creator><creatorcontrib>Maeseele, N ; Faes, J ; Van de Putte, T ; Vlasselaer, J ; de Jonge, E ; Schobbens, J C ; Deraedt, K ; Debrock, G ; Van de Putte, G</creatorcontrib><description>The standard approach of performing a completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) after a positive sentinel node for breast cancer patients is no longer generally accepted. This study applied the criterion of a 27% risk of having residual positive lymph nodes calculated by the MD Anderson nomogram to perform a cALND. This 27% cut-off is based on the number of positive non-sentinels in the Z0011 trial. A cohort of 166 cN0, sentinel positive breast cancer patients was used to validate the MD Anderson nomogram. ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) analysis shows an AUC (Area Under the Curve) of 0.76 and an optimal cut-off at 34% risk of positive non- SLNs (sensitivity 86%, specificity 57%). The 27% cut-off has a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 41% to detect positive non-sentinels. In a second cohort (N= 114) the 27% cut-off criterion was prospectively applied and appeared to be practice changing. Although we take minimal risk to leave disease behind (2/166 patients &gt;3 positive nodes), 30.7 % in the first cohort and 54.4 % of the patients in the second cohort could be spared a cALND. The Z0011 criteria would have had more impact, omitting 90% of the cALND, but leaves more disease behind. The impact of leaving disease behind on survival remains unanswered but is awaited by long term follow up of large prospective cohort studies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2032-0418</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28721184</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Belgium: Universa Press</publisher><subject>Viewpoint</subject><ispartof>Facts, views &amp; vision in ObGyn, 2017-03, Vol.9 (1), p.45-49</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2017 Facts, Views &amp; Vision</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5506769/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5506769/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28721184$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Maeseele, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Faes, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van de Putte, T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vlasselaer, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Jonge, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schobbens, J C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deraedt, K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Debrock, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van de Putte, G</creatorcontrib><title>Axillary lymph node dissection on the run?</title><title>Facts, views &amp; vision in ObGyn</title><addtitle>Facts Views Vis Obgyn</addtitle><description>The standard approach of performing a completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) after a positive sentinel node for breast cancer patients is no longer generally accepted. This study applied the criterion of a 27% risk of having residual positive lymph nodes calculated by the MD Anderson nomogram to perform a cALND. This 27% cut-off is based on the number of positive non-sentinels in the Z0011 trial. A cohort of 166 cN0, sentinel positive breast cancer patients was used to validate the MD Anderson nomogram. ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) analysis shows an AUC (Area Under the Curve) of 0.76 and an optimal cut-off at 34% risk of positive non- SLNs (sensitivity 86%, specificity 57%). The 27% cut-off has a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 41% to detect positive non-sentinels. In a second cohort (N= 114) the 27% cut-off criterion was prospectively applied and appeared to be practice changing. Although we take minimal risk to leave disease behind (2/166 patients &gt;3 positive nodes), 30.7 % in the first cohort and 54.4 % of the patients in the second cohort could be spared a cALND. The Z0011 criteria would have had more impact, omitting 90% of the cALND, but leaves more disease behind. The impact of leaving disease behind on survival remains unanswered but is awaited by long term follow up of large prospective cohort studies.</description><subject>Viewpoint</subject><issn>2032-0418</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpVkE9LxDAQxXNQ3GXdryA9ilDI_6YXZVnUFRa87D0kTWIjbVKbVtxvb8RVdBiYwwy_9-adgSWGBJeQIrEA65ReYS6BKszqC7DAosIICboEN5sP33VqPBbdsR_aIkRjC-NTss3kYyhyT60txjncXYJzp7pk16e5AoeH-8N2V-6fH5-2m305oJpPpaLY1Y4Th7GmipiKU5dtGEY51kJTV2kjKKWEmMYZCBFUUBsoIDWY0ZqswO03dph1b01jwzSqTg6j77NNGZWX_zfBt_IlvkvGIK_4F-D6BBjj22zTJHufGpu_DDbOSaI6R1MTzHA-vfqr9Svykw_5BMZqYMc</recordid><startdate>201703</startdate><enddate>201703</enddate><creator>Maeseele, N</creator><creator>Faes, J</creator><creator>Van de Putte, T</creator><creator>Vlasselaer, J</creator><creator>de Jonge, E</creator><creator>Schobbens, J C</creator><creator>Deraedt, K</creator><creator>Debrock, G</creator><creator>Van de Putte, G</creator><general>Universa Press</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201703</creationdate><title>Axillary lymph node dissection on the run?</title><author>Maeseele, N ; Faes, J ; Van de Putte, T ; Vlasselaer, J ; de Jonge, E ; Schobbens, J C ; Deraedt, K ; Debrock, G ; Van de Putte, G</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p196t-a42f9f63f22b4a3d764f041d5462b8b4f7bd844433dcfd0010a0bd0804d25493</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Viewpoint</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Maeseele, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Faes, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van de Putte, T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vlasselaer, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Jonge, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schobbens, J C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deraedt, K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Debrock, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van de Putte, G</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Facts, views &amp; vision in ObGyn</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Maeseele, N</au><au>Faes, J</au><au>Van de Putte, T</au><au>Vlasselaer, J</au><au>de Jonge, E</au><au>Schobbens, J C</au><au>Deraedt, K</au><au>Debrock, G</au><au>Van de Putte, G</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Axillary lymph node dissection on the run?</atitle><jtitle>Facts, views &amp; vision in ObGyn</jtitle><addtitle>Facts Views Vis Obgyn</addtitle><date>2017-03</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>45</spage><epage>49</epage><pages>45-49</pages><issn>2032-0418</issn><abstract>The standard approach of performing a completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) after a positive sentinel node for breast cancer patients is no longer generally accepted. This study applied the criterion of a 27% risk of having residual positive lymph nodes calculated by the MD Anderson nomogram to perform a cALND. This 27% cut-off is based on the number of positive non-sentinels in the Z0011 trial. A cohort of 166 cN0, sentinel positive breast cancer patients was used to validate the MD Anderson nomogram. ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) analysis shows an AUC (Area Under the Curve) of 0.76 and an optimal cut-off at 34% risk of positive non- SLNs (sensitivity 86%, specificity 57%). The 27% cut-off has a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 41% to detect positive non-sentinels. In a second cohort (N= 114) the 27% cut-off criterion was prospectively applied and appeared to be practice changing. Although we take minimal risk to leave disease behind (2/166 patients &gt;3 positive nodes), 30.7 % in the first cohort and 54.4 % of the patients in the second cohort could be spared a cALND. The Z0011 criteria would have had more impact, omitting 90% of the cALND, but leaves more disease behind. The impact of leaving disease behind on survival remains unanswered but is awaited by long term follow up of large prospective cohort studies.</abstract><cop>Belgium</cop><pub>Universa Press</pub><pmid>28721184</pmid><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2032-0418
ispartof Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2017-03, Vol.9 (1), p.45-49
issn 2032-0418
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5506769
source PubMed Central Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
subjects Viewpoint
title Axillary lymph node dissection on the run?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T22%3A53%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Axillary%20lymph%20node%20dissection%20on%20the%20run?&rft.jtitle=Facts,%20views%20&%20vision%20in%20ObGyn&rft.au=Maeseele,%20N&rft.date=2017-03&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=45&rft.epage=49&rft.pages=45-49&rft.issn=2032-0418&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1920393252%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1920393252&rft_id=info:pmid/28721184&rfr_iscdi=true