The value of sentinel lymph-node biopsy after neoadjuvant therapy: an overview

PurposeWe conducted a systematic review to analyse the performance of the sentinel lymph-node biopsy (SLNB) after the neoadjuvant chemotherapy, compared to axillary lymph-node dissection, in terms of false-negative rate (FNR) and sentinel lymph-node identification rate (SLNIR), sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), need for axillary lymph-node dissection (ALND), morbidity, preferences, and costs.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library were searched. We assessed the quality of the included systematic reviews using AMSTAR2 tool, and estimated the degree of overlapping of the individual studies on the included reviews.ResultsSix systematic reviews with variable quality were selected. We observed a very high overlapping degree across the included reviews. The FNR and the SLNIR were quite consistent (FNR 13–14%; SLNIR ~ 90% or higher). In women with initially clinically node-negative breast cancer, the FNR was better (6%), with similar SLNIR (96%). The included reviews did not consider the other prespecified outcomes.ConclusionsIt would be reasonable to suggest performing an SLNB in patients treated with NACT, adjusting the procedure to the previous marking of the affected lymph node, using double tracer, and biopsy of at least three sentinel lymph nodes. More well-designed research is needed. (AU)

The value of sentinel lymph-node biopsy after neoadjuvant therapy: an overview.

PURPOSE: We conducted a systematic review to analyse the performance of the sentinel lymph-node biopsy (SLNB) after the neoadjuvant chemotherapy, compared to axillary lymph-node dissection, in terms of false-negative rate (FNR) and sentinel lymph-node identification rate (SLNIR), sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), need for axillary lymph-node dissection (ALND), morbidity, preferences, and costs. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library were searched. We assessed the quality of the included systematic reviews using AMSTAR2 tool, and estimated the degree of overlapping of the individual studies on the included reviews. RESULTS: Six systematic reviews with variable quality were selected. We observed a very high overlapping degree across the included reviews. The FNR and the SLNIR were quite consistent (FNR 13-14%; SLNIR ~ 90% or higher). In women with initially clinically node-negative breast cancer, the FNR was better (6%), with similar SLNIR (96%). The included reviews did not consider the other prespecified outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: It would be reasonable to suggest performing an SLNB in patients treated with NACT, adjusting the procedure to the previous marking of the affected lymph node, using double tracer, and biopsy of at least three sentinel lymph nodes. More well-designed research is needed. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020114403.

Pancreatitis aguda en carcinoma de célula pequeña de pulmón (CPCP) resuelta con quimioterapia / Acute pancreatitis in small-cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) resolved with chemotherapy

Resumen El carcinoma de célula pequeña (CPCP) o microcítico de pulmón es un subtipo de cáncer de pulmón que típicamente se ha asociado al tabaquismo y que se caracteriza por su agresividad y mal pronóstico a corto plazo. Como entidad, puede metastatizar en cualquier órgano, siendo las metástasis pancreáticas raras y la mayoría de las veces asintomáticas. Por ello, la presencia de una pancreatitis neoplásica, como en el caso presentado, es excepcional, y aún más cuando presenta refractariedad al tratamiento médico convencional y responde al tratamiento citotóxico sistémico. Por todo ello, se expone esta experiencia clínica y se debate la presencia de esta rara entidad y su manejo.

Abstract Small-cell lung carcinoma is a subtype of neoplasm that has been typically associated with smoking; it is characterized by its aggressiveness and poor prognosis in the short term. As an entity, it can metastasize in any organ, but pancreatic metastases are rare and most of the time asymptomatic. Therefore, the presence of neoplastic pancreatitis as in our case is exceptional; even more when it presents refractoriness to conventional medical treatment, responding instead to systemic cytotoxic treatment. Therefore, we expose our clinical experience and discuss the presence of this rare entity and its management.

Tolerability to nabumetone and meloxicam in patients with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug intolerance.

BACKGROUND: Because nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) intolerance depends on COX-1 inhibition, preferential or selective COX-2 inhibitors have been thought to be well tolerated by these patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate tolerability to nabumetone and meloxicam in patients with NSAID intolerance. METHODS: Seventy patients intolerant to NSAIDs were selected. Thirty subjects were patients with asthma with respiratory (rhinitis-asthma) intolerance to NSAIDs (group A); 40 patients (group B) had cutaneous-mucous (urticaria-angioedema) NSAID intolerance. Diagnosis was based on clinical histories in all patients, and it was confirmed by positive single-blind placebo-controlled oral challenge test in 36 patients. After written informed consent, a single-blind placebo-controlled oral challenge test with nabumetone in all patients (2 g except for 11 patients who reached 1 g) and meloxicam (15 mg) in 51 patients was performed. RESULTS: Of the total selected, 94.3% tolerated 1 g nabumetone. In those who reached the 2-g dose, the tolerability was 83.6%. With respect to meloxicam, 96.1% of patients, tolerated 15 mg. No significant difference in nabumetone and meloxicam tolerability was observed between groups A and B. CONCLUSION: The results of this study confirm a high percentage of tolerability to the maximum therapeutic dosage of nabumetone and meloxicam in patients with NSAID intolerance, both in those with cutaneous/mucous manifestations and in those with respiratory disease. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Nabumetone and meloxicam are safe alternatives in NSAID-intolerant patients.