Sabine R de Wild1,2, Janine M Simons3, Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters4,5, Marjolein L Smidt1,2, Linetta B Koppert6. 1. Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 2. GROW, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiotherapy, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Surgery, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a trend towards de-escalating axillary staging and treatment in breast cancer patients. On account of neoadjuvant systemic therapy, node-positive breast cancer patients can achieve a pathological complete response of the axilla. It is hypothesized that these patients do not benefit from an axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), and thus may be spared the risk of severe post-surgical morbidity. In an effort to omit standard ALND, less invasive axillary staging procedures are being implemented to establish response-guided treatment. However, it is unclear which less invasive staging procedure is most accurate, and long-term data are missing with regard to their oncologic safety. SUMMARY: This article provides an overview of the literature on currently used less invasive axillary staging procedures, the accuracy and feasibility of these procedures in clinical practice, important issues concerning axillary treatment, and issues to be addressed in ongoing or future studies. KEY MESSAGES: More evidence is needed regarding the safety of replacing standard ALND by less invasive axillary staging procedures in terms of long-term prognosis. These less invasive staging procedures not only serve to select patients who may benefit from treatment de-escalation, but also to select patients who may benefit from treatment escalation.
BACKGROUND: There is a trend towards de-escalating axillary staging and treatment in breast cancer patients. On account of neoadjuvant systemic therapy, node-positive breast cancer patients can achieve a pathological complete response of the axilla. It is hypothesized that these patients do not benefit from an axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), and thus may be spared the risk of severe post-surgical morbidity. In an effort to omit standard ALND, less invasive axillary staging procedures are being implemented to establish response-guided treatment. However, it is unclear which less invasive staging procedure is most accurate, and long-term data are missing with regard to their oncologic safety. SUMMARY: This article provides an overview of the literature on currently used less invasive axillary staging procedures, the accuracy and feasibility of these procedures in clinical practice, important issues concerning axillary treatment, and issues to be addressed in ongoing or future studies. KEY MESSAGES: More evidence is needed regarding the safety of replacing standard ALND by less invasive axillary staging procedures in terms of long-term prognosis. These less invasive staging procedures not only serve to select patients who may benefit from treatment de-escalation, but also to select patients who may benefit from treatment escalation.
Authors: Rajesh Balasubramanian; Catrin Morgan; Elina Shaari; Tibor Kovacs; Sarah E Pinder; Hisham Hamed; Ali R Sever; Ashutosh Kothari Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Viviana Galimberti; Bernard F Cole; Giuseppe Viale; Paolo Veronesi; Elisa Vicini; Mattia Intra; Giovanni Mazzarol; Samuele Massarut; Janez Zgajnar; Mario Taffurelli; David Littlejohn; Michael Knauer; Carlo Tondini; Angelo Di Leo; Marco Colleoni; Meredith M Regan; Alan S Coates; Richard D Gelber; Aron Goldhirsch Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: M E M van der Noordaa; F H van Duijnhoven; M E Straver; E J Groen; M Stokkel; C E Loo; P H M Elkhuizen; N S Russell; M T F D Vrancken Peeters Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Sarah S Mougalian; Mike Hernandez; Xiudong Lei; Siobhan Lynch; Henry M Kuerer; William F Symmans; Richard L Theriault; Bruno D Fornage; Limin Hsu; Thomas A Buchholz; Aysegul A Sahin; Kelly K Hunt; Wei Tse Yang; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Vicente Valero Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Armando E Giuliano; Linda McCall; Peter Beitsch; Pat W Whitworth; Peter Blumencranz; A Marilyn Leitch; Sukamal Saha; Kelly K Hunt; Monica Morrow; Karla Ballman Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jean-Francois Boileau; Brigitte Poirier; Mark Basik; Claire M B Holloway; Louis Gaboury; Lucas Sideris; Sarkis Meterissian; Angel Arnaout; Muriel Brackstone; David R McCready; Stephen E Karp; Isabelle Trop; Andre Lisbona; Frances C Wright; Rami J Younan; Louise Provencher; Erica Patocskai; Atilla Omeroglu; Andre Robidoux Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David N Krag; Stewart J Anderson; Thomas B Julian; Ann M Brown; Seth P Harlow; Takamaru Ashikaga; Donald L Weaver; Barbara J Miller; Lynne M Jalovec; Thomas G Frazier; R Dirk Noyes; André Robidoux; Hugh M C Scarth; Denise M Mammolito; David R McCready; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Joseph P Costantino; Norman Wolmark Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Gunter von Minckwitz; Chiun-Sheng Huang; Max S Mano; Sibylle Loibl; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Michael Untch; Norman Wolmark; Priya Rastogi; Andreas Schneeweiss; Andres Redondo; Hans H Fischer; William Jacot; Alison K Conlin; Claudia Arce-Salinas; Irene L Wapnir; Christian Jackisch; Michael P DiGiovanna; Peter A Fasching; John P Crown; Pia Wülfing; Zhimin Shao; Elena Rota Caremoli; Haiyan Wu; Lisa H Lam; David Tesarowski; Melanie Smitt; Hannah Douthwaite; Stina M Singel; Charles E Geyer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 176.079