The Shift From Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Performed Either Before or After Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy in the Clinical Negative Nodes of Breast Cancer Patients. Results, and the Advantages and Disadvantages of Both Procedures.

BACKGROUND: In patients with breast cancer who are candidates for neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), the timing of when to perform sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) remains under discussion. The aim of this study was to compare the advantages and disadvantages of SLNB performed before and after NAT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred seventy-two patients, T1c to T3 and N0 (clinically and according to ultrasound) candidates for NAT were included. We compared the outcomes of 2 groups: (1) 122 patients of whom SLNB was performed before NAT (pre-NAT) from December 2006 to April 2014; and (2) 50 patients with SLNB performed after NAT (post-NAT) from May 2014 to July 2016. RESULTS: Both groups were homogeneous in baseline patient characteristics. The SLNB was positive in 50 patients [41.7%] (33 macrometastases [66%] and 17 micrometastases [34%]) versus 6 patients [12%] (5 macrometastases [83.3%] and 1 micrometastases [16.7%]) in pre- and post-NAT groups, respectively. The lymphadenectomy was performed in 34 patients [28.3%] versus 4 patients [8%], with an odds ratio of 3.48 (95% confidence interval, 1.3-9.3). The recurrences in the pre-NAT group after a median follow-up of 62 months were 12 systemic, 2 local and systemic, and none axillary. In the post-NAT group were no recurrences after a median follow-up of 16 months. Finally, SLNB after NAT reduces the delay in starting NAT from 24 to 14 days (medians; P < .001) and the identification of the SLNB was in 122 patients [100%] versus 49 patients [98%]. CONCLUSION: SLNB performed after NAT significantly reduces the rate of lymphadenectomies without any increase in recurrences at early follow-up. Furthermore, it allows systemic treatment to be started earlier without interfering in the SLNB identification rate.

Bevacizumab plus irinotecan in recurrent malignant glioma shows high overall survival in a multicenter retrospective pooled series of the Spanish Neuro-Oncology Research Group (GEINO).

There is no 'standard of care' for recurrent malignant glioma (MG). Our aim is to confirm the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab 10 mg/kg plus irinotecan 125 mg/m² (or 340 mg/m² if enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs) every 2 weeks for a maximum of 1 year in a retrospective pooled series of patients with recurrent MG. The inclusion criteria were as follows: age 18 years and above, histology of MG, progression after radiation and temozolomide, Karnofsky performance status (KPS) of at least 60, and signed informed consent for bevacizumab compassionate use. Response was assessed by MRI using the Macdonald criteria and evaluation of the FLAIR sequence every 8 weeks. A total of 130 patients were enrolled; 72% had glioblastoma (GBM). The median age of the patients was 53 years (20-78); the median KPS was 80%; the median number of prior chemotherapy lines was 2 (1-5); the median interval between the diagnosis of MG and inclusion was 14.6 months (2-166); and the median number of bevacizumab infusions was 8 (1-39). The median follow-up duration was 7.2 months (1-47). The median overall survival (OS) was 8.8 months for GBM and 11.2 months for anaplastic glioma (AG). The median progression-free survival was 5.1 months for GBM and 4.6 months for AG. The response rate was 56% for GBM and 68% for AG. Neurological and KPS improvements were observed in 49 and 45% of patients. Only KPS less than 80% was associated with a worse significant response rate (odds ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.96). The most frequent grades 3-4 toxicities were asthenia (7%), diarrhea (6%), and thromboembolic events (5%). There were five toxic deaths (4%). Bevacizumab plus irinotecan in recurrent MG improves responses, progression-free survival, and OS compared with historical data. KPS of at least 80% was a predictive factor for response and OS.

Patient appointment process, symptom control and prediction of follow-up compliance in a palliative care outpatient clinic.

Activities and outcomes in an outpatient palliative care clinic (PCC) have attracted little attention in the literature. We describe the results of our patient appointment scheduling process, our efficacy in relieving cancer-associated symptoms and an analysis of risk factors for patient non-compliance with the appointment schedule. Over a one-year study period, 730 first-time appointments were scheduled and 73.1% of them were kept. Only patients who had kept 3 consecutive visits (n=203) were included in the symptom control analysis. All symptoms except constipation, physical weakness, and anxiety improved significantly with palliative care. History of alcohol abuse was not associated with poorer pain control. A low Karnofsky index and high anxiety levels were identified as risk factors for early withdrawal from the PCC scheduled appointment. These data indicate that the PCC is an effective place for symptom management, but specific organizational strategies are needed to encourage patients to comply with scheduled appointments.