Search

Introduction: While general conclusions of historical trials are widely recognized, the nuances regarding precise indications of Sentinel Node Biopsy (SNB) in breast cancer in complex clinical scenarios often remain a source of debate and require further elucidation., Methods: Two reviewers (JFB and GNM) independently searched electronic databases for studies including SNB as the main intervention. Filters were applied to retrieve only clinical trials (randomized or experimental non-randomized); non-oncological outcomes were excluded. The selected studies were considered to construct a narrative review focused on inclusion criteria and survival outcomes, followed by recommendations., Results: Fourteen (n = 14) trials were selected, including eleven (n = 11) randomized trials for upfront surgery, and three (n = 3) single-group clinical trials for surgery following neoadjuvant therapy. All trials for upfront surgery provided long-term survival data for SNB, that was equivalent or non-inferior to axillary dissection, in tumors without palpable adenopathy (caution for larger T3 and T4 tumors) - Grade of recommendation: A. In tumors up to 5 cm, complete axillary dissection is not necessary if up to two sentinel nodes are positive for macrometastasis, and radiation therapy is planned - Grade of recommendation: A. If there are more than two sentinel nodes positive for macrometastasis, or a positive node other than the sentinel one, complete axillary dissection is recommended - Grade of recommendation: A. Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, considering 10% as an acceptable false negative rate, SNB might be offered for cN0 patients who have remained negative, and for cN1 (caution for cN2) patients become clinically negative; complete axillary dissection might not be necessary if at least two sentinel lymph nodes are retrieved, and there is no residual disease - Grade of recommendation: B., Conclusion: SNB can be performed in most cases of clinically negative nodes. After neoadjuvant chemotherapy, SNB is feasible and may have acceptable performance for cN0 and cN1 tumors, although prospective survival data is still awaited., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) at upfront surgery is the gold-standard surgical method for axillary lymph node staging in early stage breast cancer: the technique provides adequate information regarding axillary status, with similar oncological safety and lower morbidity compared to axillary dissection, despite the false negative rates. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), traditionally used for locally advanced breast cancer, plays an important role in the treatment of early stage breast cancer, making downstaging possible in axillary lymph node and breast cancer, thus minimizing the impact of surgery and reducing morbidity, as well as enabling patients with residual disease to be selected for adjuvant treatment. In this respect, the role of SLNB has proved controversial, particularly in view of the lack of data from randomized clinical trials on this subject. Currently, the de-escalation of axillary surgery after NACT is mainly based on retrospectives studies and false negative rates. This paper reviews current evidence on the management of axillary surgery following NACT under different circumstances, with suggested recommendations in each scenario: clinically negative nodes at diagnosis and SLNB after NACT, clinically positive nodes at diagnosis and SLNB after NACT, positive SLNB following NACT and finally the possibility of omitting axillary surgery in good responders.

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted early breast cancer (EBC) treatment worldwide. This study analyzed how Brazilian breast specialists are managing EBC., Methods: An electronic survey was conducted with members of the Brazilian Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (SBM) between April 30 and May 11, 2020. Bivariate analysis was used to describe changes in how specialists managed EBC at the beginning and during the pandemic, according to breast cancer subtype and oncoplastic surgery., Results: The response rate was 34.4% (503/1462 specialists). Most of the respondents (324; 64.4%) lived in a state capital city, were board-certified as breast specialists (395; 78.5%) and either worked in an academic institute or one associated with breast cancer treatment (390; 77.5%). The best response rate was from the southeast of the country (240; 47.7%) followed by the northeast (128; 25.4%). At the beginning of the pandemic, 43% changed their management approach. As the outbreak progressed, this proportion increased to 69.8% (p < 0.001). The southeast of the country (p = 0.005) and the state capital cities (p < 0.001) were associated with changes at the beginning of the pandemic, while being female (p = 0.001) was associated with changes during the pandemic. For hormone receptor-positive tumors with the best prognosis (Ki-67 < 20%), 47.9% and 17.7% of specialists would recommend neoadjuvant endocrine therapy for postmenopausal and premenopausal women, respectively. For tumors with poorer prognosis (Ki-67 > 30%), 34% and 10.9% would recommend it for postmenopausal and premenopausal women, respectively. Menopausal status significantly affected whether the specialists changed their approach (p < 0.00001). For tumors ≥ 1.0 cm, 42.9% of respondents would recommend neoadjuvant systemic therapy for triple-negative tumors and 39.6% for HER2 + tumors. Overall, 63.4% would recommend immediate total breast reconstruction, while only 3.4% would recommend autologous reconstruction. In breast-conserving surgery, 75% would recommend partial breast reconstruction; however, 54.1% would contraindicate mammoplasty. Furthermore, 84.9% of respondents would not recommend prophylactic mastectomy in cases of BRCA mutation., Conclusions: Important changes occurred in EBC treatment, particularly for hormone receptor-positive tumors, as the outbreak progressed in each region. Systematic monitoring could assure appropriate breast cancer treatment, mitigating the impact of the pandemic.

The present paper reports on the local treatment of breast cancer from a historical perspective. A search for articles written in English was made in the Medline and EMBASE databases, and 40 papers were selected. Over the past 10 years, various randomized, controlled clinical trials on the local treatment of breast cancer indicated that patients with the same molecular subtype may receive different individualized surgical treatments aimed at optimizing systemic adjuvant therapy. With a view to retaining the gains made in disease-free and overall survival, surgical techniques have advanced from radical surgery to conservative mastectomies, thus reducing sequelae, while adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies have contributed toward controlling the disease, both distant metastases and local recurrence. Current studies evaluate whether future breast cancer therapy may even succeed in eliminating surgery to the breast and axilla altogether., Competing Interests: Cavalcante F. P. has received honoraria as a member of the scientific advisory boards of Roche and Pfizer and has been an invited speaker at scientific meetings for Roche, Pfizer, and Gencell Pharma. Millen E. C. has been an invited speaker for Roche, Gencell Pharma, and Bard. Zerwes F. P. has been an invited speaker for Roche and Gencell Pharma. Novita G. G. has been an invited speaker for Roche., (Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.)