Joint EANM-SNMMI guideline on the role of 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT in no special type breast cancer : (endorsed by the ACR, ESSO, ESTRO, EUSOBI/ESR, and EUSOMA).

INTRODUCTION: There is much literature about the role of 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT in patients with breast cancer (BC). However, there exists no international guideline with involvement of the nuclear medicine societies about this subject. PURPOSE: To provide an organized, international, state-of-the-art, and multidisciplinary guideline, led by experts of two nuclear medicine societies (EANM and SNMMI) and representation of important societies in the field of BC (ACR, ESSO, ESTRO, EUSOBI/ESR, and EUSOMA). METHODS: Literature review and expert discussion were performed with the aim of collecting updated information regarding the role of 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT in patients with no special type (NST) BC and summarizing its indications according to scientific evidence. Recommendations were scored according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) criteria. RESULTS: Quantitative PET features (SUV, MTV, TLG) are valuable prognostic parameters. In baseline staging, 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT plays a role from stage IIB through stage IV. When assessing response to therapy, 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT should be performed on certified scanners, and reported either according to PERCIST, EORTC PET, or EANM immunotherapy response criteria, as appropriate. 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT may be useful to assess early metabolic response, particularly in non-metastatic triple-negative and HER2+ tumours. 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT is useful to detect the site and extent of recurrence when conventional imaging methods are equivocal and when there is clinical and/or laboratorial suspicion of relapse. Recent developments are promising. CONCLUSION: 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT is extremely useful in BC management, as supported by extensive evidence of its utility compared to other imaging modalities in several clinical scenarios.

European Groundshot-addressing Europe's cancer research challenges: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

Cancer research is a crucial pillar for countries to deliver more affordable, higher quality, and more equitable cancer care. Patients treated in research-active hospitals have better outcomes than patients who are not treated in these settings. However, cancer in Europe is at a crossroads. Cancer was already a leading cause of premature death before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the disastrous effects of the pandemic on early diagnosis and treatment will probably set back cancer outcomes in Europe by almost a decade. Recognising the pivotal importance of research not just to mitigate the pandemic today, but to build better European cancer services and systems for patients tomorrow, the Lancet Oncology European Groundshot Commission on cancer research brings together a wide range of experts, together with detailed new data on cancer research activity across Europe during the past 12 years. We have deployed this knowledge to help inform Europe's Beating Cancer Plan and the EU Cancer Mission, and to set out an evidence-driven, patient-centred cancer research roadmap for Europe. The high-resolution cancer research data we have generated show current activities, captured through different metrics, including by region, disease burden, research domain, and effect on outcomes. We have also included granular data on research collaboration, gender of researchers, and research funding. The inclusion of granular data has facilitated the identification of areas that are perhaps overemphasised in current cancer research in Europe, while also highlighting domains that are underserved. Our detailed data emphasise the need for more information-driven and data-driven cancer research strategies and planning going forward. A particular focus must be on central and eastern Europe, because our findings emphasise the widening gap in cancer research activity, and capacity and outcomes, compared with the rest of Europe. Citizens and patients, no matter where they are, must benefit from advances in cancer research. This Commission also highlights that the narrow focus on discovery science and biopharmaceutical research in Europe needs to be widened to include such areas as prevention and early diagnosis; treatment modalities such as radiotherapy and surgery; and a larger concentration on developing a research and innovation strategy for the 20 million Europeans living beyond a cancer diagnosis. Our data highlight the important role of comprehensive cancer centres in driving the European cancer research agenda. Crucial to a functioning cancer research strategy and its translation into patient benefit is the need for a greater emphasis on health policy and systems research, including implementation science, so that the innovative technological outputs from cancer research have a clear pathway to delivery. This European cancer research Commission has identified 12 key recommendations within a call to action to reimagine cancer research and its implementation in Europe. We hope this call to action will help to achieve our ambitious 70:35 target: 70% average 10-year survival for all European cancer patients by 2035.

Global Cancer Surgery: pragmatic solutions to improve cancer surgery outcomes worldwide.

The first Lancet Oncology Commission on Global Cancer Surgery was published in 2015 and serves as a landmark paper in the field of cancer surgery. The Commission highlighted the burden of cancer and the importance of cancer surgery, while documenting the many inadequacies in the ability to deliver safe, timely, and affordable cancer surgical care. This Commission builds on the first Commission by focusing on solutions and actions to improve access to cancer surgery globally, developed by drawing upon the expertise from cancer surgery leaders across the world. We present solution frameworks in nine domains that can improve access to cancer surgery. These nine domains were refined to identify solutions specific to the six WHO regions. On the basis of these solutions, we developed eight actions to propel essential improvements in the global capacity for cancer surgery. Our initiatives are broad in scope, pragmatic, affordable, and contextually applicable, and aimed at cancer surgeons as well as leaders, administrators, elected officials, and health policy advocates. We envision that the solutions and actions contained within the Commission will address inequities and promote safe, timely, and affordable cancer surgery for every patient, regardless of their socioeconomic status or geographic location.

Evolution and refinement of magnetically guided sentinel lymph node detection in breast cancer: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIO) have been used as a tracer for sentinel lymph node (SLN) localization in breast cancer, demonstrating comparable performance to the combination of radioisotope (RI) and blue dye (BD). METHODS: A systematic literature search and meta-analysis with subgroup and meta-regression analysis were undertaken to update the available evidence, assess technique evolution, and define knowledge gaps. Recommendations were made using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: In 20 comparative studies, the detection rate was 97.5 per cent for SPIO and 96.5 per cent for RI ± BD (risk ratio 1.006, 95 per cent c.i. 0.992 to 1.019; P = 0.376, high-certainty evidence). Neoadjuvant therapy, injection site, injection volume or nodal metastasis burden did not affect the detection rate, but injection over 24 h before surgery increased the detection rate on meta-regression. Concordance was 99.0 per cent and reverse concordance 97.1 per cent (rate difference 0.003, 95 per cent c.i. -0.009 to 0.015; P = 0.656, high-certainty evidence). Use of SPIO led to retrieval of slightly more SLNs (pooled mean 1.96 versus 1.89) with a higher nodal detection rate (94.1 versus 83.5 per cent; RR 1.098, 1.058 to 1.140; P < 0.001; low-certainty evidence). In meta-regression, injection over 24 h before surgery increased the SPIO nodal yield over that of RI ± BD. The skin-staining rate was 30.8 per cent (very low-certainty evidence), and possibly prevented with use of smaller doses and peritumoral injection. CONCLUSION: The performance of SPIO is comparable to that of RI ± BD. Preoperative injection increases the detection rate and nodal yield, without affecting concordance. Whether skin staining and MRI artefacts are reduced by lower dose and peritumoral injection needs to be investigated.

Health-Related Quality of Life After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Results From the INSPIRE Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is increasingly used for both breast cancer (TNSM) and risk reduction (RRNSM). The aim of the study is to report the results of the INSPIRE registry assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) comparing baseline and 1-year follow-up, regarding surgical indications and chemotherapy (CT) received. METHODS: INSPIRE is a prospective database including women undergoing NSM and IBR from 18 countries. HRQoL was measured using EORTC QLQC30 and QLQ-BR23 before surgery and after 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 677 women were included, of whom 537 (79.3%) underwent TNSM and 140 (21.6%) RRNSM: in total, 806 NSM (556 TNSM and 250 RRNSM). Nipple involvement was present in 7.73% of TNSM and incidental carcinoma in 1.2% of the RRNSM group. Out of the overall 537 patients with systemic treatment, 177 (32.96%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) and 118 (21.92%) adjuvant chemotherapy (CT). A total of 227 patients (28.16%) developed at least one complication postoperatively, 164 (29.5%) in the TNSM group and 63 (25.2%) in the RRNSM group. The TNSM group improved in global health status and emotional functioning after 1 year. No differences were found when comparing HRQoL at 1 year between patients who received NCT and those who received adjuvant CT. The RRNSM group showed improvement in HRQoL, with better emotional functioning and fatigue after 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: This registry reports HRQoL findings after NSM. The impact of CT on worse HRQoL is independent from its timing. Patients with RRNSM showed an improved HRQoL at 1-year follow-up. Discussion of HRQoL outcomes with patients will facilitate the informed decision-making when considering NSM.

Axillary surgery after neoadjuvant therapy in initially node-positive breast cancer: international EUBREAST survey.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on axillary management after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in patients with clinically node-positive (cN+) breast cancer. To investigate current clinical practice, an international survey was conducted among breast surgeons and radiation oncologists. The aim of the first part of the survey was to provide a snapshot of international discrepancies regarding axillary surgery in this context. METHODS: The European Breast Cancer Research Association of Surgical Trialists (EUBREAST) developed a web-based survey containing 39 questions describing clinical scenarios in the setting of axillary management in patients with cN1 disease converting to ycN0 after NAT. The survey was then distributed to breast surgeons and radiation oncologists via 14 breast cancer societies between April and October 2021. RESULTS: Responses from 349 physicians in 45 countries were recorded. The most common post-NAT axillary surgery in patients with cN1 disease converting to ycN0 was targeted axillary dissection (54.2 per cent), followed by sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) alone (20.9 per cent), level 1-2 axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) (18.4 per cent), level 1-3 ALND (4 per cent), and targeted lymph node biopsy (2.5 per cent). For SLNB alone, dual tracers were most commonly used (62.3 per cent). Management varied widely in patients with ambiguous axillary status before initiation of treatment or a residual metastatic burden in the axilla after NAT. In patients with ycN+ tumours, ALND was the preferred surgical approach for 66.8 per cent of respondents. CONCLUSION: These results highlight the wide heterogeneity in surgical approaches to the axilla after NAT. To standardize the guidelines, further data from clinical research are urgently needed, which underlines the importance of the ongoing AXSANA (EUBREAST-3) study.

Intraoperative Ultrasound-Guided Excision of Non-Palpable and Palpable Breast Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Wire-guided localization (WGL) is the most frequently used localization technique in non-palpable breast cancer (BC). However, low negative margin rates, patient discomfort, and the possibility of wire dislocation have been discussed as potential disadvantages, and re-operation due to positive margins may increase relapse risk. Intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS)-guided excision allows direct visualization of the lesion and the resection volume and reduces positive margins in palpable and non-palpable tumors. We performed a systematic review on IOUS in breast cancer and 2 meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). In non-palpable BC, 3 RCTs have shown higher negative margin rates in the IOUS arm compared to WGL. Meta-analysis confirmed a significant difference between IOUS and WGL in terms of positive margins favoring IOUS (risk ratio 4.34, p < 0.0001, I2 = 0%). 41 cohort studies including 3291 patients were identified, of which most reported higher negative margin and lower re-operation rates if IOUS was used. In palpable BC, IOUS was compared to palpation-guided excision in 3 RCTs. Meta-analysis showed significantly higher rates of positive margins in the palpation arm (risk ratio 2.84, p = 0.0047, I2 = 0%). In 13 cohort studies including 942 patients with palpable BC, negative margin rates were higher if IOUS was used, and tissue volumes were higher in palpation-guided cohorts in most studies. IOUS is a safe noninvasive technique for the localization of sonographically visible tumors that significantly improves margin rates in palpable and non-palpable BC. Surgeons should be encouraged to acquire ultrasound skills and participate in breast ultrasound training.

Breast conservation and axillary management after primary systemic therapy in patients with early-stage breast cancer: the Lucerne toolbox.

Primary systemic therapy is increasingly used in the treatment of patients with early-stage breast cancer, but few guidelines specifically address optimal locoregional therapies. Therefore, we established an international consortium to discuss clinical evidence and to provide expert advice on technical management of patients with early-stage breast cancer. The steering committee prepared six working packages to address all major clinical questions from diagnosis to surgery. During a consensus meeting that included members from European scientific oncology societies, clinical trial groups, and patient advocates, statements were discussed and voted on. A consensus was reached in 42% of statements, a majority in 38%, and no decision in 21%. Based on these findings, the panel developed clinical guidance recommendations and a toolbox to overcome many clinical and technical requirements associated with the diagnosis, response assessment, surgical planning, and surgery of patients with early-stage breast cancer. This guidance could convince clinicians and patients of the major clinical advancements purported by primary systemic therapy, the use of less extensive and more targeted surgery to improve the lives of patients with breast cancer.

70-gene signature as an aid for treatment decisions in early breast cancer: updated results of the phase 3 randomised MINDACT trial with an exploratory analysis by age.

BACKGROUND: The MINDACT trial showed excellent 5-year distant metastasis-free survival of 94·7% (95% CI 92·5-96·2) in patients with breast cancer of high clinical and low genomic risk who did not receive chemotherapy. We present long-term follow-up results together with an exploratory analysis by age. METHODS: MINDACT was a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 112 academic and community hospitals in nine European countries. Patients aged 18-70 years, with histologically confirmed primary invasive breast cancer (stage T1, T2, or operable T3) with up to three positive lymph nodes, no distant metastases, and a WHO performance status of 0-1 were enrolled and their genomic risk (using the MammaPrint 70-gene signature) and clinical risk (using a modified version of Adjuvant! Online) were determined. Patients with low clinical and low genomic risk results did not receive chemotherapy, and patients with high clinical and high genomic risk did receive chemotherapy (mostly anthracycline-based or taxane-based, or a combination thereof). Patients with discordant risk results (ie, patients with high clinical risk but low genomic risk, and those with low clinical risk but high genomic risk) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive chemotherapy or not based on either the clinical risk or the genomic risk. Randomisation was done centrally and used a minimisation technique that was stratified by institution, risk group, and clinical-pathological characteristics. Treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was to test whether the distant metastasis-free survival rate at 5 years in patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk not receiving chemotherapy had a lower boundary of the 95% CI above the predefined non-inferiority boundary of 92%. In the primary test population of patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk who adhered to the treatment allocation of no chemotherapy and had no change in risk post-enrolment. Here, we present updated follow-up as well as an exploratory analysis of a potential age effect (≤50 years vs >50 years) and an analysis by nodal status for patients with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative disease. These analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00433589, and the European Clinical Trials database, EudraCT2005-002625-31. Recruitment is complete and further long-term follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2007, and July 11, 2011, 6693 patients were enrolled. On Feb 26, 2020, median follow-up was 8·7 years (IQR 7·8-9·7). The updated 5-year distant metastasis-free survival rate for patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk receiving no chemotherapy (primary test population, n=644) was 95·1% (95% CI 93·1-96·6), which is above the predefined non-inferiority boundary of 92%, supporting the previous analysis and proving MINDACT as a positive de-escalation trial. Patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy (n=749) or not (n=748); this was the intention-to-treat population. The 8-year estimates for distant metastasis-free survival in the intention-to-treat population were 92·0% (95% CI 89·6-93·8) for chemotherapy versus 89·4% (86·8-91·5) for no chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0·66; 95% CI 0·48-0·92). An exploratory analysis confined to the subset of patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative disease (1358 [90.7%] of 1497 randomly assigned patients, of whom 676 received chemotherapy and 682 did not) shows different effects of chemotherapy administration on 8-year distant metastasis-free survival according to age: 93·6% (95% CI 89·3-96·3) with chemotherapy versus 88·6% (83·5-92·3) without chemotherapy in 464 women aged 50 years or younger (absolute difference 5·0 percentage points [SE 2·8, 95% CI -0·5 to 10·4]) and 90·2% (86·8-92·7) versus 90·0% (86·6-92·6) in 894 women older than 50 years (absolute difference 0·2 percentage points [2·1, -4·0 to 4·4]). The 8-year distant metastasis-free survival in the exploratory analysis by nodal status in these patients was 91·7% (95% CI 88·1-94·3) with chemotherapy and 89·2% (85·2-92·2) without chemotherapy in 699 node-negative patients (absolute difference 2·5 percentage points [SE 2·3, 95% CI -2·1 to 7·2]) and 91·2% (87·2-94·0) versus 89·9% (85·8-92·8) for 658 patients with one to three positive nodes (absolute difference 1·3 percentage points [2·4, -3·5 to 6·1]). INTERPRETATION: With a more mature follow-up approaching 9 years, the 70-gene signature shows an intact ability of identifying among women with high clinical risk, a subgroup, namely patients with a low genomic risk, with an excellent distant metastasis-free survival when treated with endocrine therapy alone. For these women the magnitude of the benefit from adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy remains small (2·6 percentage points) and is not enhanced by nodal positivity. However, in an underpowered exploratory analysis this benefit appears to be age-dependent, as it is only seen in women younger than 50 years where it reaches a clinically relevant threshold of 5 percentage points. Although, possibly due to chemotherapy-induced ovarian function suppression, it should be part of informed, shared decision making. Further study is needed in younger women, who might need reinforced endocrine therapy to forego chemotherapy. FUNDING: European Commission Sixth Framework Programme.

Leveraging the increased rates of pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant treatment in breast cancer to de-escalate surgical treatments.

INTRODUCTION: Breast conservative surgery (BCS) and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) after neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) is safe and effective for selected patients. This aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of anatomic site of response on outcomes and to assess the real population who may benefit from nonsurgical approaches after NAT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From a prospectively maintained database, patients with T1-4 N0-2 breast cancer undergoing NAT were identified. Clinicopathological and survival rates were compared in relation to response and anatomic site of response. RESULTS: Six hundred and forty-six patients were included in the study. Pathologic complete response (pCR) was an independent factor for BCS and SLN. HER2 positive and TN tumors with cN0 achieving a breast pCR remain ypN0 (p = .002). Residual axillary disease was associated with breast residual tumor (p = .05) and subtype (p = .001). With a median follow up of 35.25 months, patients with any pCR had improved survival when compared with partial response, but not significant differences between pCR, axillary pCR, or breast pCR. CONCLUSION: Achieving a pCR increases BCS and SLN. In selected subgroups, sparing any axillary surgery after NAT maybe feasible. In cN+ patients, any pCR was associated with survival, but not the anatomic site of response.

Breast and axillary surgery in malignant breast disease: a review focused on literature of 2018 and 2019.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There have been fundamental changes in the surgical approach to breast cancer management over the last decades. The primary objective of achieving locoregional control, however, remains unchanged. RECENT FINDINGS: In addition to strategies optimizing systemic treatment and radiotherapy, current discussions focus on improving the surgical approach to breast cancer. Especially in view of the increasingly pivotal role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy NAT/NAC (NACT), gauging the extent of tissue removal in the breast and the width of resection margins in breast-conserving surgery is highly important, as is the extent of axillary surgery. Although sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive patients always underwent axillary lymph node dissection in the past, this paradigm has been challenged in recent years. Targeted axillary dissection (TAD) has emerged as a new staging option in biopsy-proven node-positive patients who convert to clinical node negativity (cN0) after NACT. TAD combines the removal of the SLN and of the target lymph node marked prior to NACT. The accuracy of axillary staging both before and after NACT plays an important role for prognostication and multidisciplinary treatment plans, while its extent has significant effects on patients' arm morbidity and quality of life. SUMMARY: The current review focuses on recent evidence regarding surgical management of the breast and axilla in patients with primary breast cancer based on a PubMed and EMBASE literature search for publication years 2018 and 2019.

Neoadjuvant Management of Early Breast Cancer: A Clinical and Investigational Position Statement.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant treatment is increasingly one of the preferred therapeutic options for early breast cancer and may have some unique outcomes, such as identifying predictive and prognostic factors of response or increasing the knowledge of individual tumor biology. DESIGN: A panel of experts from different specialties reviewed published clinical studies on the neoadjuvant management of breast cancer. Recommendations were made that emphasized the clinical multidisciplinary management and the investigational leverage in early breast cancer. RESULTS: Neoadjuvant therapy has equivalent efficacy to adjuvant therapy, and it has some additional benefits that include increasing breast conservation, assessing tumor response, establishing prognosis based on the pathological response, and providing a "second opportunity" for nonresponding patients. Achieving pathological complete remission because of neoadjuvant therapy has been correlated with long-term clinical benefit, particularly in HER2-positive and triple-negative breast cancer. In addition, the neoadjuvant setting is a powerful model for the development of new drugs and the identification of prognostic markers. Finally, neoadjuvant therapy has proven to be cost-effective by reducing nondrug costs, avoiding radical surgery, and reducing hospital stays when compared with other treatment approaches. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant therapy has clinical benefits in early breast cancer and provides in vivo information of individual breast cancer biology while allowing the investigation of new treatment approaches. Access to neoadjuvant therapy should be an option available to all patients with breast cancer through multidisciplinary tumor management. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Neoadjuvant treatment should be strongly considered as a therapeutic option for localized breast cancer and is a powerful tool for understanding breast cancer biology and investigating new treatment approaches.

70-Gene Signature as an Aid to Treatment Decisions in Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The 70-gene signature test (MammaPrint) has been shown to improve prediction of clinical outcome in women with early-stage breast cancer. We sought to provide prospective evidence of the clinical utility of the addition of the 70-gene signature to standard clinical-pathological criteria in selecting patients for adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: In this randomized, phase 3 study, we enrolled 6693 women with early-stage breast cancer and determined their genomic risk (using the 70-gene signature) and their clinical risk (using a modified version of Adjuvant! Online). Women at low clinical and genomic risk did not receive chemotherapy, whereas those at high clinical and genomic risk did receive such therapy. In patients with discordant risk results, either the genomic risk or the clinical risk was used to determine the use of chemotherapy. The primary goal was to assess whether, among patients with high-risk clinical features and a low-risk gene-expression profile who did not receive chemotherapy, the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the rate of 5-year survival without distant metastasis would be 92% (i.e., the noninferiority boundary) or higher. RESULTS: A total of 1550 patients (23.2%) were deemed to be at high clinical risk and low genomic risk. At 5 years, the rate of survival without distant metastasis in this group was 94.7% (95% confidence interval, 92.5 to 96.2) among those not receiving chemotherapy. The absolute difference in this survival rate between these patients and those who received chemotherapy was 1.5 percentage points, with the rate being lower without chemotherapy. Similar rates of survival without distant metastasis were reported in the subgroup of patients who had estrogen-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, and either node-negative or node-positive disease. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with early-stage breast cancer who were at high clinical risk and low genomic risk for recurrence, the receipt of no chemotherapy on the basis of the 70-gene signature led to a 5-year rate of survival without distant metastasis that was 1.5 percentage points lower than the rate with chemotherapy. Given these findings, approximately 46% of women with breast cancer who are at high clinical risk might not require chemotherapy. (Funded by the European Commission Sixth Framework Program and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00433589; EudraCT number, 2005-002625-31.).

Risk factors for locoregional disease recurrence after breast-conserving therapy in patients with breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: An international collaboration and individual patient meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported a high risk of local disease recurrence (LR) and locoregional disease recurrence (LRR) in patients with breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) and breast-conserving therapy (BCT). The objective of the current study was to identify potential risk factors for LR and LRR after NCT and BCT. METHODS: Individual patient data sets from 9 studies were pooled. The outcomes of interest were the occurrence of LR and/or LRR. A 1-stage meta-analytic approach was used. Cox proportional hazards regression models were applied to identify factors that were predictive of LR and LRR, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 9 studies (4125 patients) provided their data sets. The 10-year LR rate was 6.5%, whereas the 10-year LRR rate was 10.3%. Four factors were found to be associated with a higher risk of LR: 1) estrogen receptor-negative disease; 2) cN + disease; 3) a lack of pathologic complete response in axilla (pN0); and 4) pN2 to pN3 disease. The predictive score for LR determined 3 risk groups: a low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk group with 10-year LR rates of 4.0%, 7.9%, and 20.4%, respectively. Two additional factors were found to be associated with an increased risk of LRR: cT3 to cT4 disease and a lack of pathologic complete response in the breast. The predictive score for LRR determined 3 risk groups; a low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk group with 10-year LRR rates of 3.2%, 10.1%, and 24.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: BCT after NCT appears to be an oncologically safe procedure for a large percentage of patients with breast cancer. Two easy-to-use clinical scores were developed that can help clinicians to identify patients at higher risk of LR and LRR after NCT and BCT and individualize the postoperative treatment plan and follow-up. Cancer 2018;124:2923-30. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Breast-conserving surgery following neoadjuvant therapy-a systematic review on surgical outcomes.

PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is increasingly used in breast cancer treatment. One of the main goals of NACT is to reduce the extent of local surgery of the breast and axilla. The aim of this study was to determine surgical outcomes for patients receiving breast-conserving therapy (BCT) after NACT, including margin status plus secondary surgeries, excision volumes, and cosmetic outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA principles. Pubmed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies investigating the results of BCT following NACT. The main study outcomes were margin status, additional local therapies, excision volumes, and cosmetic outcomes. Non-comparative studies on NACT were also included. Exclusion criteria were studies with less than 25 patients, and studies excluding secondary mastectomy patients. FINDINGS: Of the 1219 studies screened, 26 studies were deemed eligible for analysis, including data from 5379 patients treated with NACT and 10,110 patients treated without NACT. Included studies showed wide ranges of tumor-involved margins (2-39.8%), secondary surgeries (0-45.4%), and excision volumes (43.2-268 cm3) or specimen weight (26.4-233 g) after NACT. Most studies were retrospective, with a high heterogeneity and a high risk of bias. Cosmetic outcomes after NACT were reported in two single-center cohort studies. Both studies showed acceptable cosmetic outcomes. INTERPRETATION: There is currently insufficient evidence to suggest that NACT improves surgical outcomes of BCT. It is imperative that clinical trials include patient outcome measures in order to allow monitoring and meaningful comparison of treatment outcomes in breast cancer.

Correction to: Breast-conserving surgery following neoadjuvant therapy-a systematic review on surgical outcomes.

In the original publication of the article, Table 2 was published incorrectly. The corrected Table 2 is given in this erratum. The original article has been corrected.

Oncoplastic Breast Consortium consensus conference on nipple-sparing mastectomy.

PURPOSE: Indications for nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) have broadened to include the risk reducing setting and locally advanced tumors, which resulted in a dramatic increase in the use of NSM. The Oncoplastic Breast Consortium consensus conference on NSM and immediate reconstruction was held to address a variety of questions in clinical practice and research based on published evidence and expert panel opinion. METHODS: The panel consisted of 44 breast surgeons from 14 countries across four continents with a background in gynecology, general or reconstructive surgery and a practice dedicated to breast cancer, as well as a patient advocate. Panelists presented evidence summaries relating to each topic for debate during the in-person consensus conference. The iterative process in question development, voting, and wording of the recommendations followed the modified Delphi methodology. RESULTS: Consensus recommendations were reached in 35, majority recommendations in 24, and no recommendations in the remaining 12 questions. The panel acknowledged the need for standardization of various aspects of NSM and immediate reconstruction. It endorsed several oncological contraindications to the preservation of the skin and nipple. Furthermore, it recommended inclusion of patients in prospective registries and routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Considerable heterogeneity in breast reconstruction practice became obvious during the conference. CONCLUSIONS: In case of conflicting or missing evidence to guide treatment, the consensus conference revealed substantial disagreement in expert panel opinion, which, among others, supports the need for a randomized trial to evaluate the safest and most efficacious reconstruction techniques.

Intraoperative Ultrasound-Guided Excision of Axillary Clip in Patients with Node-Positive Breast Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Therapy (ILINA Trial) : A New Tool to Guide the Excision of the Clipped Node After Neoadjuvant Treatment.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) has been improved with the placement of a clip in the positive node prior to treatment. Several methods have been described for clipped node excision during SLNB after NAT. We assessed the feasibility of intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS)-guided excision of the clipped node during SLNB and investigated whether the accuracy of SLNB is improved. METHODS: After approval by the Institutional Ethics Committee, all breast cancer patients undergoing NAT had an US-visible clip placed in the positive node. The ILINA trial consisted of IOUS-guided excision of the clipped node along with SLNB and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). RESULTS: Forty-six patients had a clip placed in the positive node. In two (4.3%) cases, the clip could not be seen prior to surgery and the patient underwent ALND; however, the clipped node was successfully removed by IOUS-guided excision in 44 patients. Thirty-five patients (79.5%) underwent SLNB along with IOUS-guided excision of the clipped node and ALND, and were subsequently included in the ILINA trial. Nine patients were not included (five patients with SLNB only and four patients with ALND without SLNB). SLNB matched the clipped node in 27 (77%) patients. The false negative rate for the ILINA protocol was 4.1% (95% confidence interval 0.1-21.1%). CONCLUSIONS: IOUS-guided excision of the axillary clipped node after NAT was feasible, safe, and successful in 100% of cases. The ILINA trial is accurate in predicting axillary nodal status after NAT.