Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Using Intradermal Microbubble Sulfur Hexafluoride in Non-invasive Axillary Staging in Breast Cancer: Are we Missing a Chance?

BACKGROUND/AIM: In the context of surgical de-escalation in early breast cancer (EBC), this study aimed to evaluate the contrast enhancement ultrasound (CEUS) sentinel lymph node (SLN) procedure as a non-invasive axillary staging procedure in EBC in comparison with standard SLN biopsy (SLNB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A subanalysis of the AX-CES study, a prospective single-arm, monocentric phase 3 study was performed (EudraCT: 2020-000393-20). The study included patients with EBC undergoing upfront surgery and SLN resection, with no prior history of locoregional treatment, and weighing between 40-85 kg. All patients underwent the CEUS SLN procedure as a non-invasive axillary staging procedure, with CEUS SLN accumulation marked using blue dye. After the CEUS SLN procedure, all patients underwent the standard mapping procedure. Data on success rate, systemic reactions, mean procedure time, mean surgical procedure, mean procedure without axillary staging, CEUS SLN appearance (normal/pathological), SLN number, and concordance with standard mapping procedure were collected. RESULTS: After the CEUS SLN procedure, 29 LNs among 16 patients were identified and marked. In all cases, CEUS SLN revealed at least one LN enhancement. Six (37.50%) LNs were defined as pathological after the CEUS SLN procedure. Definitive staining of CEUS SLN pathology revealed metastatic involvement in four (66.67%) of the cases. Two SLNs were identified during the CEUS SLN procedure; however, owing to the low disease burden, no change in the surgical plan was reported. CONCLUSION: The CEUS SLN procedure shows promise as a technique for non-invasive assessment of the axilla, potentially enabling safe axillary de-escalation in EBC by estimating the axillary disease burden.

Cavity Shave Margins in Breast Conservative Surgery a Strategy to Reduce Positive Margins and Surgical Time.

Background: Resection of additional tissue circumferentially around the cavity left by lumpectomy (cavity shave) was suggested to reduce rates of positive margins and re-excision. Methods: A single center retrospective study which analyzed margins status, re-excision, and surgical time in patients who underwent breast conserving surgery and cavity shave or intraoperative evaluation of resection margins. Results: Between 2021 and 2023, 594 patients were enrolled in the study. In patients subjected to cavity shave, a significant reduction in positive, focally positive, or closer margins was reported 8.9% vs. 18.5% (p = 0.003). No difference was reported in terms of surgical re-excision (p < 0.846) (5% vs. 5.5%). Surgical time was lower in patients subjected to cavity shave (<0.001). The multivariate analysis intraoperative evaluation of sentinel lymph node OR 1.816 and cavity shave OR 2.909 were predictive factors for a shorter surgical time. Excluding patients subjected to intraoperative evaluation of sentinel lymph node and patients with ductal carcinoma in situ, patients that underwent the cavity shave presented a reduced surgical time (67.9 + 3.8 min vs. 81.6 + 2.8 min) (p = 0.006). Conclusions: Cavity shaving after lumpectomy reduced the rate of positive margins and it was associated with a significant reduction in surgical time compared to intraoperative evaluation of resection margins.

Exploring the Spectrum of VEGF Inhibitors' Toxicities from Systemic to Intra-Vitreal Usage in Medical Practice.

The use of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor inhibitors (VEGFi) has become prevalent in the field of medicine, given the high incidence of various pathological conditions necessitating VEGF inhibition within the general population. These conditions encompass a range of advanced neoplasms, such as colorectal cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, renal cancer, ovarian cancer, and others, along with ocular diseases. The utilization of VEGFi is not without potential risks and adverse effects, requiring healthcare providers to be well-prepared for identification and management. VEGFi can be broadly categorized into two groups: antibodies or chimeric proteins that specifically target VEGF (bevacizumab, ramucirumab, aflibercept, ranibizumab, and brolucizumab) and non-selective and selective small molecules (sunitinib, sorafenib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, regorafenib, etc.) designed to impede intracellular signaling of the VEGF receptor (RTKi, receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors). The presentation and mechanisms of adverse effects resulting from VEGFi depend primarily on this distinction and the route of drug administration (systemic or intra-vitreal). This review provides a thorough examination of the causes, recognition, management, and preventive strategies for VEGFi toxicities with the goal of offering support to oncologists in both clinical practice and the design of clinical trials.