Diagnostic Accuracy of Radioactive Iodine Seed Placement in the Axilla With Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Node-Positive Breast Cancer.

Importance: Several less-invasive staging procedures have been proposed to replace axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with initially clinically node-positive (cN+) breast cancer, but these procedures may fail to detect residual disease. Owing to the lack of high-level evidence, it is not yet clear which procedure is most optimal to replace ALND. Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of radioactive iodine seed placement in the axilla with sentinel lymph node biopsy (RISAS), a targeted axillary dissection procedure. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a prospective, multicenter, noninferiority, diagnostic accuracy trial conducted from March 1, 2017, to December 31, 2019. Patients were included within 14 institutions (general, teaching, and academic) throughout the Netherlands. Patients with breast cancer clinical tumor categories 1 through 4 (cT1-4; tumor diameter <2 cm and up to >5 cm or extension to the chest wall or skin) and pathologically proven positive axillary lymph nodes (ie, clinical node categories cN1, metastases to movable ipsilateral level I and/or level II axillary nodes; cN2, metastases to fixed or matted ipsilateral level I and/or level II axillary nodes; cN3b, metastases to ipsilateral level I and/or level II axillary nodes with metastases to internal mammary nodes) who were treated with NAC were eligible for inclusion. Data were analyzed from July 2020 to December 2021. Intervention: Pre-NAC, the marking of a pathologically confirmed positive axillary lymph node with radioactive iodine seed (MARI) procedure, was performed and after NAC, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) combined with excision of the marked lymph node (ie, RISAS procedure) was performed, followed by ALND. Main Outcomes and Measures: The identification rate, false-negative rate (FNR), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for all 3 procedures: RISAS, SLNB, and MARI. The noninferiority margin of the observed FNR was 6.25% for the RISAS procedure. Results: A total of 212 patients (median [range] age, 52 [22-77] years) who had cN+ breast cancer underwent the RISAS procedure and ALND. The identification rate of the RISAS procedure was 98.2% (223 of 227). The identification rates of SLNB and MARI were 86.4% (197 of 228) and 94.1% (224 of 238), respectively. FNR of the RISAS procedure was 3.5% (5 of 144; 90% CI, 1.38-7.16), and NPV was 92.8% (64 of 69; 90% CI, 85.37-97.10), compared with an FNR of 17.9% (22 of 123; 90% CI, 12.4%-24.5%) and NPV of 72.8% (59 of 81; 90% CI, 63.5%-80.8%) for SLNB and an FNR of 7.0% (10 of 143; 90% CI, 3.8%-11.6%) and NPV of 86.3% (63 of 73; 90% CI, 77.9%-92.4%) for the MARI procedure. In a subgroup of 174 patients in whom SLNB and the MARI procedure were successful and ALND was performed, FNR of the RISAS procedure was 2.5% (3 of 118; 90% CI, 0.7%-6.4%), compared with 18.6% (22 of 118; 90% CI, 13.0%-25.5%) for SLNB (P < .001) and 6.8% (8 of 118; 90% CI, 3.4%-11.9%) for the MARI procedure (P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this diagnostic study suggest that the RISAS procedure was the most feasible and accurate less-invasive procedure for axillary staging after NAC in patients with cN+ breast cancer.

The clinical relevance of various methods of classifying ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence as either true local recurrence or new primary.

PURPOSE: Describes the relevance of -various classification methods for ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR) as either true recurrence (TR) or new primary (NP) on both disease-specific survival (DSS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). METHOD: Two hundred and thirty-four of 4359 women undergoing breast-conserving therapy experienced IBTR. We compared the impact of four known classification methods and two newly created classification methods. RESULTS: For three of the methods, a better DSS was observed for NP compared to TR with the hazard ratio (HR) ranging from 0.5 to 0.6. The new Twente method classification, comprising all classification criteria of three known methods, and the new Morphology method, using only morphological criteria, had the best HR and confidence interval with a HR 0.5 (95% CI 0.2-1.0) and a HR 0.5 (95% CI 0.3-1.1), respectively. For DMFS, the HR for NP compared to TR ranged from 0.6 to 0.9 for all six methods. The new Morphology method and the Twente method noted the best HR and confidence intervals with a HR 0.6 (95% CI 0.3-1.1) and a HR 0.6 (95% CI 0.4-1.2), respectively. CONCLUSION: IBTR classified as TR or NP has a prognostic value for both DSS and DMFS, but depends on the classification method used. Developing and validating a generally accepted form of classification are imperative for using TR and NP in clinical practice.

Adherence to the Dutch Breast Cancer Guidelines for Surveillance in Breast Cancer Survivors: Real-World Data from a Pooled Multicenter Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Regular follow-up after treatment for breast cancer is crucial to detect potential recurrences and second contralateral breast cancer in an early stage. However, information about follow-up patterns in the Netherlands is scarce. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Details concerning diagnostic procedures and policlinic visits in the first 5 years following a breast cancer diagnosis were gathered between 2009 and 2019 for 9916 patients from 4 large Dutch hospitals. This information was used to analyze the adherence of breast cancer surveillance to guidelines in the Netherlands. Multivariable logistic regression was used to relate the average number of a patient's imaging procedures to their demographics, tumor-treatment characteristics, and individual locoregional recurrence risk (LRR), estimated by a risk-prediction tool, called INFLUENCE. RESULTS: The average number of policlinic contacts per patient decreased from 4.4 in the first to 2.0 in the fifth follow-up year. In each of the 5 follow-up years, the share of patients without imaging procedures was relatively high, ranging between 31.4% and 33.6%. Observed guidelines deviations were highly significant (P < .001). A higher age, lower UICC stage, and having undergone radio- or chemotherapy were significantly associated with a higher chance of receiving an imaging procedure. The estimated average LRR-risk was 3.5% in patients without any follow-up imaging compared with 2.3% in patients with the recommended number of 5 imagings. CONCLUSION: Compared to guidelines, more policlinic visits were made, although at inadequate intervals, and fewer imaging procedures were performed. The frequency of imaging procedures did not correlate with the patients' individual risk profiles for LRR.