How Often Does Retrieval of a Clipped Lymph Node Change Adjuvant Therapy Recommendations? A Prospective, Consecutive, Patient Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies examining sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for cN1 patients have demonstrated that 20% of biopsied, clipped lymph nodes (cLNs) are nonsentinel lymph nodes (non-SLNs). Our goal was to determine how often the cLN was a non-SLN among both cN0 and cN1 patients and how often cLN pathology impacted management. METHODS: Overall, 238 patients treated with NAC and surgery January 2019 to June 2020 were prospectively examined. Patients underwent routine axillary ultrasound, biopsy of suspicious nodes, and clip placement. Radioactive iodine-125 seed localization of the cLN was performed in cN1 patients only. Isolated tumor cells (ITCs) were considered node positive (ypN+) for both cN0 and cN1 cohorts. Chart review was performed to determine if cLNs were non-SLN and their ypN status. RESULTS: Of 118 cN0 patients, 115 of 118 (97%) underwent successful SLNB, 33 of whom had a cLN present; 21 of 33 (64%) cLNs were non-SLNs. Overall, 9 of 118 (8%) were ypN+; no cLN was ypN+ without additional +SLNs. Of 120 cN1 patients, 104 of 120 (87%) converted to cN0, 98 of 104 (94%) of which had attempted SLNB, and 95 of 98 (97%) successfully mapped. The cLN was a non-SLN in 18 of 95 (19%). Overall, 58 of 104 (56%) cN1 patients were ypN+. One patient had a positive cLN in the absence of +SLNs. This patient underwent axillary lymph node dissection (ALND); adjuvant treatment recommendations were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: The cLN was a non-SLN in 19% of cN1 patients. cLN pathology did not impact adjuvant therapy recommendations, calling into question the utility of routinely clipping biopsied lymph nodes.

Cirrhosis is not a contraindication to cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in highly selected patients.

BACKGROUND: Patient selection for cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is critically important to optimizing outcomes. There is currently no literature regarding the safety of CRS/HIPEC in patients with cirrhosis. The aim of this case series is to report the outcomes of three patients with well-compensated cirrhosis who underwent CRS/HIPEC. METHODS: Patients were identified from a prospectively maintained peritoneal surface malignancy database. Patient, tumor, and operative-related details were recorded as short-term postoperative outcomes. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: All patients had well-compensated (Child-Pugh Class A) cirrhosis and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0. One patient had preoperative evidence of portal hypertension. All safely underwent CRS/HIPEC with completeness of cytoreduction (CC) scores of 0. The postoperative morbidity profile was unique, but all complications were manageable and resulted in full recovery to preoperative baseline status. CONCLUSIONS: Patient selection for CRS/HIPEC is critical for optimization of short- and long-term outcomes. This small series suggests that well-compensated cirrhosis should not be an absolute contraindication to CRS/HIPEC.