Reliability of predicting low-burden (≤ 2) positive axillary lymph nodes indicating sentinel lymph node biopsy in primary operable breast cancer - a retrospective comparative study with PET/CT and breast MRI.

BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for axillary staging in early breast cancer patients with low-burden axillary metastasis (≤ 2 positive nodes). This study aimed to determine the diagnostic performances of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and breast magnetic resonance imaging in detecting axillary lymph node (ALN) metastases and the reliability to predict ALN burden. METHODS: A total of 275 patients with primary operable breast cancer receiving preoperative PET/CT and upfront surgery from January 2001 to December 2022 in a single institution were enrolled. A total of 244 (88.7%) of them also received breast MRI. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of PET/CT and breast MRI were assessed. The predictive values to determine ALN burden were evaluated using radio-histopathological concordance. RESULTS: PET/CT demonstrated a sensitivity of 53.4%, specificity of 82.1%, PPV of 65.5%, NPV of 73.5%, and accuracy of 70.9% for detecting ALN metastasis, and the corresponding values for MRI were 71.8%, 67.8%, 56%, 80.8%, and 69.2%, respectively. Combining PET/CT and MRI showed a significantly higher PPV than MRI (72.7% vs 56% for MRI alone, p = 0.037) and a significantly higher NPV than PET/CT (84% vs 73.5% for PET/CT alone, p = 0.041). For predicting low-burden axillary metastasis (1-2 positive nodes), the PPVs were 35.9% for PET/CT, 36.7% for MRI, and 55% for combined PET/CT and MRI. Regarding patients with 0-2 positive ALNs in imaging, who were indicated for SLNB, the predictive correctness was 96.1% for combined PET/CT and MRI, 95.7% for MRI alone, and 88.6% for PET/CT alone. CONCLUSIONS: PET/CT and breast MRI exhibit high predictive values for identifying low-burden axillary metastasis in patients with operable breast cancer with ≦ 2 positive ALNs on imaging.

Is minimal-accessed (endoscopic- or robotic-assisted) nipple-sparing mastectomy contraindicated for large breasts?

BACKGROUND: In the developmental stage of minimal-accessed nipple-sparing mastectomy (MA-NSM), selecting patients with small to medium-sized breasts was common for better cosmetic outcomes and oncological safety. However, the suitability of MA-NSM for large, ptotic breasts remained uncertain. This retrospective study aim to assess MA-NSM outcomes in patients with large breasts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included patients receiving conventional NSM (C-NSM) and MA-NSM from January 2011 to September 2022, at a single institution. We analyzed perioperative parameters and clinical outcomes based on breast specimen size, classified as small (≤300 g), medium (>300-450 g), large (>450-600 g), and very large (>600 g). RESULTS: A total of 728 patients was enrolled. C-NSM was performed in 51% (371/728) of cases, while MA-NSM was done in 49% (357/728). The overall complication rate of MA-NSM was comparable to C-NSM (p = 0.573), but severe complications (Clavien-Dindo, CD III) was significantly reported more following C-NSM, regardless of breast size. During a median follow-up of 52 months, no significant difference in oncological outcomes was observed. Comparing MA-NSM and C-NSM outcomes in large-very large breasts (>450 g), MA-NSM demonstrated significantly less blood loss (p = 0.036) and lower incidence of severe complications (CD ≥ III) compared to C-NSM (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: MA-NSM is feasible for large breasts and offers benefits by reducing blood loss and decreasing the incidence of severe complications (CD ≥ III) in this patient group.

Scarless totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) implantation: Surgical technique, preliminary results, learning curve, and patients-reported outcome in 125 breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Minimal-access (endoscopic or robotic-assisted) breast surgery has been increasingly performed and shown better cosmetic results. However, location of totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) for systemic treatment at anterior chest may compromise its aesthetic benefits. Therefore, we proposed a new scarless technique for TIVAP implantation, and reported the preliminary results, learning curve, and patients-surveyed outcome. METHODS: Surgical technique of the new "scarless" TIVAP implantation was proposed. Patients receiving this procedure in a single institution were included. The preliminary results of the scarless TIVAP implantation, learning curve, and patient-reported outcome were analyzed and reported. RESULTS: A total of 125 breast cancer patients received scarless TIVAP procedures were enrolled. The primary success rate of the scarless TIVAP implantation was 100%. Mean operative time was 46 ± 14 min. Mean amount of blood loss was 8.5 ± 3.2 ml. The cumulative sum plot showed operation time significantly decreased after 24th cases. In the initial learning phase, the mean operative time was 55 ± 17 min, and decreased to 43 ± 12 min in the later mature phase (P = 0.003). There were 5 (4%) complications detected, which included 1 (0.8%) seroma formation, 2 (1.6%) revisions, and 2 (1.6%) unplanned explantations. From patients-evaluated questionnaires, more than 90% of responders were satisfied with aesthetic results, experience during surgery, and application of scarless TIVAP for systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The scarless TIVAP implantation is a safe & reliable procedure with high patients-reported aesthetic satisfaction, and could be an alternative TIVAP procedure for patients requiring chemotherapy and desiring a less noticeable scar.