Multicenter prospective evaluation of the reliability of the combined use of two models to predict non-sentinel lymph node status in breast cancer patients with metastatic sentinel lymph nodes: the MSKCC nomogram and the Tenon score. Results of the NOTEGS study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the combined use of The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram and Tenon score to select, in patients with metastatic sentinel lymph node (SN), those at low risk of metastatic non-SN for whom additional axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) could be avoided. METHODS: From January 2011 to July 2012, a prospective non-interventional nationwide study was conducted (NCT01509963). We sought to identify the false reassurance rate (FRR, a negative test result is false) in patients with both a ⩽10% probability of metastatic non-SN with the MSKCC nomogram and a Tenon score ⩽3.5 (low risk): the proportion of patients with metastatic non-SN at additional ALND. Our hypothesis was that these patients would have a FRR⩽5%. RESULTS: Data on 2822 patients with breast cancer from 53 institutions were prospectively recorded. At least one SN was metastatic (isolated tumour cells, micro- or macrometastases) in 696 patients (24.7%). Among patients with ALND and complete data to calculate combined risk (n=504), 67 and 437 patients had low and high combined risk, respectively. Patients at low risk had less ALND (47%) compared to patients at high risk (P<0.001). This study did not meet its primary objective because the FRR in patients with low risk was 16.4% (11 out of 67) (95% confidence interval (CI): 9.7-23.1%). In the high-risk group, 33.9% (148 out of 437) (95% CI: 29.6-38.4%) had non-SN metastases (P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In this controlled prospective study, metastatic SN patients with both a ⩽10% probability of metastatic non-SN with the MSKCC nomogram and a Tenon score ⩽3.5 failed to identify patients at low risk of metastatic non-SN when completion ALND was not systematic.

Prophylactic neck dissection for low-risk differentiated thyroid cancers: Risk-benefit analysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of neck dissection is the subject of debate in differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC). We analyze the risk-benefit of neck dissection for low-risk DTC without detectable lymph nodes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study from 1983 to 2003; which included 295 patients without detectable lymph nodes who were treated by thyroidectomy with (C+) or without (C-) neck dissection. All patients had iodine131 therapy. We compared the frequency of remission, disease progression, and permanent complications between groups. RESULTS: Two hundred twelve patients comprised the C+ group, and 83 patients the C- group. Respectively for C+ versus C-, remission rates were 92% versus 89.2% (p = .40), and progressive disease observed was 3.3% versus 7.2% (p = .10). Permanent hypoparathyroidism occurred in 15.1% in C+ versus 3.6% in C- (p = .006). CONCLUSION: The risk-benefit analysis of neck dissection in patients with low-risk DTC shows no benefit in terms of complete remission or occurrence of progression. However, risk of complications seems to be higher in patients with neck dissection. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: 1091-1096, 2016.

[Standards, options and recommendations for nutritional support in bone marrow transplant patients]. / Standards, options et Recommandations pour la nutrition artificielle au cours et au décours de la greffe de cellules souches hématopoïétiques (CSH).

CONTEXT: The "Standards, Options and Recommendations" (SOR) project, started in 1993, is a collaboration between the Federation of French Cancer Centers (FNCLCC), the 20 French cancer centers and specialists from French public university and general hospitals and private clinics. Its main objective is the development of clinical practice guidelines to improve the quality of health care and outcome for cancer patients. The methodology is based on literature review and critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary group of experts, with feedback from specialists in cancer care delivery. OBJECTIVES: To develop, according to the definitions of the Standards, Options and Recommendations, clinical practice guidelines for nutritional support in bone marrow transplant patients. METHODS: Data were identified by searching Medline , web sites and the personal reference lists of members of the expert groups, then submitted for review to 75 independent reviewers. RESULTS: The main recommendations for nutritional support in bone marrow transplant patients are: 1) Nutritional evaluation and monitoring may be proposed to bone-marrow transplant recipients (options). 2) Nutritional evaluation consists of body weight assessment and percent weight loss evaluation (standard, expert agreement). 3) Nutritional monitoring should include daily weight monitoring, clinical monitoring of hydration and assessment of daily dietary intake (standard, expert agreement). 4) Artificial nutrition is recommended in immuno-suppressed bone marrow transplant patients. This is not systematically indicated in other situation (standard). 5) Artificial nutrition, intravenous hydration and oral nutrition can be proposed to bone-marrow transplant recipients (option). 6) There is no standard modality for artificial nutrition (level of evidence B 1). Exclusive enteral or parenteral nutrition and enteral plus parenteral nutrition may be proposed to bone-marrow transplant patients (options). 7) Lipid intake representing up to 30% of the non-protein caloric intake should be supplied to patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation (standard, level of evidence B1). 8) Oral supplementation with nitrogen substrates or glutamine is not recommended. Parenteral glutamine supplementation may be proposed (option).