Modelo predictivo multiparamétrico del estatus axilar en pacientes con cáncer de mama: carga tumoral total y perfil molecular. Estudio multicéntrico / A multiparametric predictive model of axillary status in patients with breast cancer: total tumoral load and molecular signature. A multicenter study

Objetivo. El objetivo de nuestro estudio es evaluar el impacto combinado de cada uno de los perfiles moleculares del cáncer de mama, subrogados inmunohistoquímicamente junto con la carga tumoral total del ganglio centinela como predictores de afectación metastásica en los ganglios axilares no centinela. Material y métodos. Se incluyeron 373 pacientes de carcinoma infiltrante de mama con ganglio centinela metastásico y linfadenectomía axilar, procedentes de seis hospitales españoles. Se aplicaron los criterios de ST Gallen para definir el perfil molecular. Se realizó un análisis multivariante para definir diferentes modelos predictivos y se estudiaron las distribuciones de densidad de probabilidad de la carga tumoral para cada perfil molecular en los casos con axila metastásica y no metastásica en los ganglios no centinela. Resultados. Hubo un 66% de linfadenectomías axilares metastásicas. Se obtuvieron 7 modelos predictivos cuyas áreas bajo la curva ROC oscilaron entre 0,65 y 0,77. El mejor modelo fue el basado en la carga tumoral total, tipo histológico, diámetro tumoral, grado, invasión linfovascular, perfil molecular y número total de ganglios centinela. Las mayores diferencias de densidad de probabilidad de la carga tumoral total se producen entre las distribuciones de casos positivos y negativos de los perfiles moleculares BH, TN y HER2. Conclusión. La inclusión del perfil molecular en el modelo mejora el área bajo la curva ROC, especialmente si se incluye también el número total de cganglios centinela. Se observan diferencias entre los distintos perfiles moleculares para el valor predictivo de la carga tumoral total (AU)

Objective. To evaluate the combined impact of each of the immunohistochemically surrogated molecular signatures (PM) of breast cancer subtype along with the total tumor load (CTT) of the sentinel node (SN) as a predictor of non-SN metastatic involvement. Methods. We included 373 patients diagnosed with infiltrating breast cancer with metastatic SN who underwent subsequent axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) from six hospitals. The surrogate MS for each case was defined as per ST Gallen definitions. A multivariate analysis was conducted to estimate the predictive model and normal kernel functions to fit the density distributions of the total tumoral load for each molecular signatures. Results. Metastatic involvement of the axillary lymph node was identified in 66% of the patients. We obtained seven different predictive models with an area under curve (AUC) ranging from 0.65 to 0.77. The best model was based on the CTT, histological type, tumor size, stage, lymphatic invasion, MS, and the total number of SN. The greatest differences in the density functions of the CTT were found in the PM for positive and negative cases of the BH, TN and HER2 subtypes. Conclusions. The inclusion of PM in the multivariate model improved the AUC, especially when the total number of sentinel nodes were included. Differences were observed in the impact of the CTT among the different smolecular profiles subtypes (AU)

Preparación intestinal selectiva en un programa de rehabilitación multimodal. Influencia en el confort preoperatorio y resultados tras cirugía colorrectal / Selective intestinal preparation in a multimodal rehabilitation program. Influence on preoperative comfort and the results after colorectal surgery

Introducción: Pese a no haberse evidenciado ventajas de su empleo, la preparación mecánica anterograda (PMA) sigue siendo usual en cirugía colorrectal. Nuestro objetivo es analizar el impacto de su empleo selectivo respecto a confort y resultados en pacientes de un programa de rehabilitación multimodal perioperatoria (RHMM) o con cuidados convencionales (CC). Material y métodos: Estudio prospectivo de 108 pacientes propuestos para cirugía electiva, asignados consecutivamente 2:1 a un protocolo de RHMM que incluyo emplear solamente PMA en cirugía rectal con anastomosis baja o a CC en los que se empleo PMA, salvo en cirugía del colon derecho. Además se estudiaron dos grupos (A y B) en función de si se uso o no PMA. Se analizaron su tolerabilidad, sus resultados y las variables de recuperación postoperatoria. Resultados: Se incluyo a 39 pacientes en el grupo A y a 69 en el B; 69 siguieron el protocolo de RHMM. Los pacientes del grupo A presentaron más dolor abdominal, malestar anal, nauseas y sed, pero no hubo diferencias en lo que respecta a la tasa de muertes, complicaciones globales o su tipo, mientras que sý tuvieron menos complicaciones, fallos de sutura y muertes los pacientes del grupo RHMM (p < 0,05). Tampoco hubo ventajas del empleo de PMA respecto al inicio del tránsito intestinal, tolerancia a la dieta o estancias, pero estos parametros fueron favorables al grupo de RHMM. Conclusiones: La restricción de la PMA a casos seleccionados es segura, y asociada a un programa de RHMM contribuye a una recuperación mas rápida y cómoda sin incrementarlas complicaciones (AU)

Introduction: Despite there being no evidence of the advantages of its use, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) continues to be routine in colorectal surgery. Our objective is to analyse the impact of its selective use, as regards patient comfort and results, comparing a perioperative multimodal rehabilitation program (MMRH) with conventional care (CC). Material and methods: A prospective study of 108 patients proposed for elective surgery, assigned consecutively 2:1 to an MMRH protocol which only included MBP in rectal surgery with low anastomosis, or to CC in whom MBP was used except in right colon surgery. We also studied two Groups (A and B) with and without the use of MBP. Their tolerance, results and postoperative recovery variables were analysed. Results: Thirty-nine patients were included in Group A, and 69 in Group B. A MMRH protocol was used in another 69 patients. The Group A patients had more abdominal pain, anal discomfort, nausea and thirst, but there were no differences as regards, death, overall or local complications, whilst there was less complications, suture failures and death in the MMRH when compared with CC Group (P < .05). There were no advantages observed in the use of MBP as regards the start of bowel movements, tolerance to diet or hospital stay, but these parameters were favourable to the MMRH when compared with CC Group. Conclusions: The restriction of MBP is safe, and associated with an MMRH program, contributes to a faster and more comfortable recovery, without increasing complications (AU)

[Selective intestinal preparation in a multimodal rehabilitation program. Influence on preoperative comfort and the results after colorectal surgery]. / Preparación intestinal selectiva en un programa de rehabilitación multimodal. Influencia en el confort preoperatorio y resultados tras cirugía colorrectal.

INTRODUCTION: Despite there being no evidence of the advantages of its use, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) continues to be routine in colorectal surgery. Our objective is to analyse the impact of its selective use, as regards patient comfort and results, comparing a perioperative multimodal rehabilitation program (MMRH) with conventional care (CC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective study of 108 patients proposed for elective surgery, assigned consecutively 2:1 to an MMRH protocol which only included MBP in rectal surgery with low anastomosis, or to CC in whom MBP was used except in right colon surgery. We also studied two Groups (A and B) with and without the use of MBP. Their tolerance, results and postoperative recovery variables were analysed. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were included in Group A, and 69 in Group B. A MMRH protocol was used in another 69 patients. The Group A patients had more abdominal pain, anal discomfort, nausea and thirst, but there were no differences as regards, death, overall or local complications, whilst there was less complications, suture failures and death in the MMRH when compared with CC Group (P<.05). There were no advantages observed in the use of MBP as regards the start of bowel movements, tolerance to diet or hospital stay, but these parameters were favourable to the MMRH when compared with CC Group. CONCLUSIONS: The restriction of MBP is safe, and associated with an MMRH program, contributes to a faster and more comfortable recovery, without increasing complications.