Janine M Simons1,2,3,4, Thiemo J A van Nijnatten4,5, Carmen C van der Pol3,6, Paul J van Diest7, Agnes Jager8, David van Klaveren9, Boen L R Kam10,11, Marc B I Lobbes4,5,12, Maaike de Boer13, Cees Verhoef2, Paul R A Sars14, Harald J Heijmans15, Els R M van Haaren16, Wouter J Vles17, Caroline M E Contant18, Marian B E Menke-Pluijmers19, Léonie H M Smit20, Wendy Kelder21, Marike Boskamp22, Linetta B Koppert2, Ernest J T Luiten23,24,25, Marjolein L Smidt4,26. 1. Department of Radiotherapy, Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Surgical Oncology, Cancer Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 4. GROW-School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center+, the Netherlands. 6. Department of Surgical Oncology, Alrijne Hospital, Leiderdorp, the Netherlands. 7. Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 8. Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 9. Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 10. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 11. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 12. Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands. 13. GROW-School for Oncology and Reproduction, Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 14. Department of Surgical Oncology, Bravis Hospital, Roosendaal, the Netherlands. 15. Department of Surgical Oncology, Hospital Group Twente, Breast Clinic Oost-Nederland, Hengelo, the Netherlands. 16. Department of Surgical Oncology, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard, the Netherlands. 17. Department of Surgical Oncology, Ikazia Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 18. Department of Surgical Oncology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 19. Department of Surgical Oncology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands. 20. Department of Surgical Oncology, Treant Zorggroep Hospital, Hoogeveen, the Netherlands. 21. Department of Surgical Oncology, Martini Hospital, Groningen, the Netherlands. 22. Department of Surgical Oncology, Wilhelmina Hospital, Assen, the Netherlands. 23. Department of Surgical Oncology, Amphia Hospital, Breda, the Netherlands. 24. Tawam Breast Care Center, Tawam Hospital, Al Ain, Abu Dhabi Emirate, United Arab Emirates. 25. Department of Surgery College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, Abu Dhabi Emirate, United Arab Emirates. 26. Deparment of Surgical Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Abstract
Importance: Several less-invasive staging procedures have been proposed to replace axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with initially clinically node-positive (cN+) breast cancer, but these procedures may fail to detect residual disease. Owing to the lack of high-level evidence, it is not yet clear which procedure is most optimal to replace ALND. Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of radioactive iodine seed placement in the axilla with sentinel lymph node biopsy (RISAS), a targeted axillary dissection procedure. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a prospective, multicenter, noninferiority, diagnostic accuracy trial conducted from March 1, 2017, to December 31, 2019. Patients were included within 14 institutions (general, teaching, and academic) throughout the Netherlands. Patients with breast cancer clinical tumor categories 1 through 4 (cT1-4; tumor diameter <2 cm and up to >5 cm or extension to the chest wall or skin) and pathologically proven positive axillary lymph nodes (ie, clinical node categories cN1, metastases to movable ipsilateral level I and/or level II axillary nodes; cN2, metastases to fixed or matted ipsilateral level I and/or level II axillary nodes; cN3b, metastases to ipsilateral level I and/or level II axillary nodes with metastases to internal mammary nodes) who were treated with NAC were eligible for inclusion. Data were analyzed from July 2020 to December 2021. Intervention: Pre-NAC, the marking of a pathologically confirmed positive axillary lymph node with radioactive iodine seed (MARI) procedure, was performed and after NAC, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) combined with excision of the marked lymph node (ie, RISAS procedure) was performed, followed by ALND. Main Outcomes and Measures: The identification rate, false-negative rate (FNR), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for all 3 procedures: RISAS, SLNB, and MARI. The noninferiority margin of the observed FNR was 6.25% for the RISAS procedure. Results: A total of 212 patients (median [range] age, 52 [22-77] years) who had cN+ breast cancer underwent the RISAS procedure and ALND. The identification rate of the RISAS procedure was 98.2% (223 of 227). The identification rates of SLNB and MARI were 86.4% (197 of 228) and 94.1% (224 of 238), respectively. FNR of the RISAS procedure was 3.5% (5 of 144; 90% CI, 1.38-7.16), and NPV was 92.8% (64 of 69; 90% CI, 85.37-97.10), compared with an FNR of 17.9% (22 of 123; 90% CI, 12.4%-24.5%) and NPV of 72.8% (59 of 81; 90% CI, 63.5%-80.8%) for SLNB and an FNR of 7.0% (10 of 143; 90% CI, 3.8%-11.6%) and NPV of 86.3% (63 of 73; 90% CI, 77.9%-92.4%) for the MARI procedure. In a subgroup of 174 patients in whom SLNB and the MARI procedure were successful and ALND was performed, FNR of the RISAS procedure was 2.5% (3 of 118; 90% CI, 0.7%-6.4%), compared with 18.6% (22 of 118; 90% CI, 13.0%-25.5%) for SLNB (P < .001) and 6.8% (8 of 118; 90% CI, 3.4%-11.9%) for the MARI procedure (P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this diagnostic study suggest that the RISAS procedure was the most feasible and accurate less-invasive procedure for axillary staging after NAC in patients with cN+ breast cancer.
Importance: Several less-invasive staging procedures have been proposed to replace axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with initially clinically node-positive (cN+) breast cancer, but these procedures may fail to detect residual disease. Owing to the lack of high-level evidence, it is not yet clear which procedure is most optimal to replace ALND. Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of radioactive iodine seed placement in the axilla with sentinel lymph node biopsy (RISAS), a targeted axillary dissection procedure. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a prospective, multicenter, noninferiority, diagnostic accuracy trial conducted from March 1, 2017, to December 31, 2019. Patients were included within 14 institutions (general, teaching, and academic) throughout the Netherlands. Patients with breast cancer clinical tumor categories 1 through 4 (cT1-4; tumor diameter <2 cm and up to >5 cm or extension to the chest wall or skin) and pathologically proven positive axillary lymph nodes (ie, clinical node categories cN1, metastases to movable ipsilateral level I and/or level II axillary nodes; cN2, metastases to fixed or matted ipsilateral level I and/or level II axillary nodes; cN3b, metastases to ipsilateral level I and/or level II axillary nodes with metastases to internal mammary nodes) who were treated with NAC were eligible for inclusion. Data were analyzed from July 2020 to December 2021. Intervention: Pre-NAC, the marking of a pathologically confirmed positive axillary lymph node with radioactive iodine seed (MARI) procedure, was performed and after NAC, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) combined with excision of the marked lymph node (ie, RISAS procedure) was performed, followed by ALND. Main Outcomes and Measures: The identification rate, false-negative rate (FNR), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for all 3 procedures: RISAS, SLNB, and MARI. The noninferiority margin of the observed FNR was 6.25% for the RISAS procedure. Results: A total of 212 patients (median [range] age, 52 [22-77] years) who had cN+ breast cancer underwent the RISAS procedure and ALND. The identification rate of the RISAS procedure was 98.2% (223 of 227). The identification rates of SLNB and MARI were 86.4% (197 of 228) and 94.1% (224 of 238), respectively. FNR of the RISAS procedure was 3.5% (5 of 144; 90% CI, 1.38-7.16), and NPV was 92.8% (64 of 69; 90% CI, 85.37-97.10), compared with an FNR of 17.9% (22 of 123; 90% CI, 12.4%-24.5%) and NPV of 72.8% (59 of 81; 90% CI, 63.5%-80.8%) for SLNB and an FNR of 7.0% (10 of 143; 90% CI, 3.8%-11.6%) and NPV of 86.3% (63 of 73; 90% CI, 77.9%-92.4%) for the MARI procedure. In a subgroup of 174 patients in whom SLNB and the MARI procedure were successful and ALND was performed, FNR of the RISAS procedure was 2.5% (3 of 118; 90% CI, 0.7%-6.4%), compared with 18.6% (22 of 118; 90% CI, 13.0%-25.5%) for SLNB (P < .001) and 6.8% (8 of 118; 90% CI, 3.4%-11.9%) for the MARI procedure (P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this diagnostic study suggest that the RISAS procedure was the most feasible and accurate less-invasive procedure for axillary staging after NAC in patients with cN+ breast cancer.
Authors: David W Ollila; Constance T Cirrincione; Donald A Berry; Lisa A Carey; William M Sikov; Clifford A Hudis; Eric P Winer; Mehra Golshan Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2017-01-13 Impact factor: 6.113
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: Toan T Nguyen; Tanya L Hoskin; Courtney N Day; Amy C Degnim; James W Jakub; Tina J Hieken; Judy C Boughey Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Judy C Boughey; Karla V Ballman; Huong T Le-Petross; Linda M McCall; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Gretchen M Ahrendt; Lee G Wilke; Bret Taback; Eric C Feliberti; Kelly K Hunt Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Giacomo Montagna; Anita Mamtani; Andrea Knezevic; Edi Brogi; Andrea V Barrio; Monica Morrow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-06-02 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Sanaz Samiei; Janine M Simons; Sanne M E Engelen; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Jean-Marc Classe; Marjolein L Smidt Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2021-06-09 Impact factor: 14.766
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
Authors: J M Simons; L B Koppert; E J T Luiten; C C van der Pol; S Samiei; J H W de Wilt; S Siesling; M L Smidt Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 4.872