Clinical and cost outcomes of a polyethylene glycol (PEG)-coated patch versus drainage after axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer: results from a multicentre randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between breast cancer patients who underwent axillary lymph node dissection with postoperative management using a polyethylene glycol-coated patch versus axillary drainage. The direct costs associated with both postoperative management strategies were also evaluated. METHODS: This was a multicentre RCT in women with breast cancer who underwent axillary lymph node dissection (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04487561). Patients were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to receive either drainage or a polyethylene glycol-coated patch as postoperative management. The primary endpoints were the need for an emergency department visit for any event related to the surgery and the rate of seroma development. RESULTS: A total of 227 patients were included , 115 in the patch group (50.7 per cent) and 112 (29.4 per cent ) in the drainage group. The incidence of emergency department visits was significantly greater for patients with drainage versus a polyethylene glycol-coated patch (incidence rate difference 26.1 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 14.5 to 37.7 per cent; P < 0.001). Conversely, the seroma rate was significantly higher in the polyethylene glycol-coated patch group (incidence rate difference 22.8 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. 6.7 to 38.9 per cent; P < 0.0055). Compared with drainage, using a polyethylene glycol-coated patch resulted in cost savings of €100.41 per patient. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio analysis found that drainage was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €7594.4 for no need for hospital admission and €491.7 for no need for an emergency department visit. CONCLUSION: Compared with patients who received drainage after axillary lymph node dissection, the use of a polyethylene glycol-coated patch resulted in a higher rate of seroma, but a lower number of postoperative outpatient or emergency department visits and thus a reduction in overall costs.

¿Son los colgajos toracoabdominales una herramienta útil en el tratamiento del carcinoma de mama avanzado? / Are thoracoabdominal flaps an effective tool in the treatment of advanced breast cancer?

A pesar de los avances en el tratamiento del cáncer de mama existen casos en los que la enfermedad se presenta en estadios avanzados y precisa tratamientos quirúrgicos agresivos que originan grandes defectos en la pared torácica. Dentro de las diferentes técnicas comprendidas en la cirugía oncoplástica, los colgajos toracoabdominales, incluidos en el grupo de colgajos de rotación, se han postulado como una técnica atractiva para cubrir los amplios defectos que resultan de estas cirugías tan extensas, con el fin de comenzar precozmente el tratamiento adyuvante y mejorar la supervivencia sin aumentar la morbilidad. Es importante establecer una correcta indicación y el exhaustivo conocimiento de la anatomía con el objetivo de conseguir un cierre simple del defecto con una buena cobertura cutánea. (AU)

Despite advances in the treatment of breast cancer, there are cases in which the disease occurs in advanced stages and requires aggressive surgical treatments that cause large defects in the chest wall. Within the different techniques included in oncoplastic surgery, the thoracoabdominal flaps, included in the group of rotation flaps, have been postulated as an attractive technique to cover the wide defects resulting from these extensive surgeries, in order to start adjuvant treatment earlier and improve survival without increasing morbidity. It is important to establish a correct indication and an exhaustive knowledge of the anatomy in order to achieve a simple closure of the defect with good skin coverage. (AU)

Is Axillary Assessment of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast Necessary in All Cases?

BACKGROUND: Staging of the axilla in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a point of controversy. We aimed to assess whether there is a group of patients in whom axillary assessment can be avoided and whether the likelihood of underdiagnosis of infiltrating carcinoma is sufficient to justify this evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study of patients who were operated on between 2008 and 2018 in three Spanish hospitals, with a diagnosis by radiological or excisional biopsy of DCIS and clinically and radiologically negative axilla. RESULTS: A total of 530 patients with a preoperative diagnosis of DCIS were studied. An axillary assessment was performed in 77% of the patients. In 397 patients, selective sentinel lymph node biopsy was performed. Axillary involvement was found in 7.2% of all patients, which dropped to 2.15% if we only included DCIS diagnosed after a definitive anatomical pathology analysis. Underdiagnosis was correlated with the type of biopsy performed: the risk was 1.34 times as high if the biopsy was performed with a core needle. The risk of lymph node metastasis was higher when there was lymphovascular invasion and when mastectomy was performed. CONCLUSIONS: We propose an axilla management algorithm in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of DCIS. The patients who would benefit from sentinel lymph node biopsy would be those who are not candidates for breast-conserving surgery, those with a BIRADS 5 lesion biopsied by core-needle biopsy, and those whose definitive diagnosis is lymphovascular invasion.