Sentinel node involvement with or without completion axillary lymph node dissection: treatment and pathologic results of randomized SERC trial.

Based on results of clinical trials, completion ALND (cALND) is frequently not performed for patients with breast conservation therapy and one or two involved sentinel nodes (SN) by micro- or macro-metastases. However, there were limitations despite a conclusion of non-inferiority for cALND omission. No trial had included patients with SN macro-metastases and total mastectomy or with >2 SN macro-metastases. The aim of the study was too analyze treatment delivered and pathologic results of patients included in SERC trial. SERC trial is a multicenter randomized non-inferiority phase-3 trial comparing no cALND with cALND in cT0-1-2, cN0 patients with SN ITC (isolated tumor cells) or micro-metastases or macro-metastases, mastectomy or breast conservative surgery. We randomized 1855 patients, 929 to receive cALND and 926 SLNB alone. No significant differences in patient's and tumor characteristics, type of surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) were observed between the two arms. Rates of involved SN nodes by ITC, micro-metastases, and macro-metastases were 5.91%, 28.12%, and 65.97%, respectively, without significant difference between two arms for all criteria. In multivariate analysis, two factors were associated with higher positive non-SN rate: no AC versus AC administered after ALND (OR = 3.32, p < 0.0001) and >2 involved SN versus ≤2 (OR = 3.45, p = 0.0258). Crude rates of positive NSN were 17.62% (74/420) and 26.45% (73/276) for patient's eligible and non-eligible to ACOSOG-Z0011 trial. No significant differences in patient's and tumor characteristics and treatment delivered were observed between the two arms. Higher positive-NSN rate was observed for patients with AC performed after ALND (17.65% for SN micro-metastases, 35.22% for SN macro-metastases) in comparison with AC administered before ALND.

External Validation of the SERC Trial Population: Comparison with the Multicenter French Cohort, the Swedish and SENOMIC Trial Populations for Breast Cancer Patients with Sentinel Node Micro-Metastasis.

Many trials confirmed the safety of omitting axillary dissection in the selected patients treated for early breast cancer. The external validity of these trials is questionable. Our study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the French population representativity in the SERC trial and the differences between these two populations as well as comparing the French and the Swedish populations (the SENOMIC trial population and the Swedish National Breast Cancer Registry (NKBC) cohort) of patients with sentinel node (SN) micro-metastasis. A higher rate of smaller tumors and grade 1 tumors was observed in the French cohort when compared to the SERC population. Our findings conclude that both French populations show similar characteristics. Positive non-sentinel node (NSN) rates at completion axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) were 10.28 % and 11.3 % in the SERC trial and French cohort, respectively (p = 0.5). The rate of grade 1 tumors was lower in the SENOMIC trial (16.2%) and in the NKBC cohort (17.4%) compared to the SERC trial population (27.3%) and the French cohort (34.4%). Our findings in addition to the previously demonstrated concordance between the SENOMIC trial and the NKBC populations imply that the results of both the SERC and the SENOMIC trials can be applied to both French and Swedish real populations.

Overview of the pathological results and treatment characteristics in the first 1000 patients randomized in the SERC trial: axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with involved sentinel node.

BACKGROUND: Three randomized trials have concluded at non inferiority of omission of complementary axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) for patients with involved sentinel node (SN). However, we can outline strong limitations of these trials to validate this attitude with a high scientific level. We designed the SERC randomized trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01717131) to compare outcomes in patients with SN involvement treated with ALND or no further axillary treatment. The aim of this study was to analyze results of the first 1000 patients included. METHODS: SERC trial is a multicenter non-inferiority phase 3 trial. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent factors associated with adjuvant chemotherapy administration and non-sentinel node (NSN) involvement. RESULTS: Of the 963 patients included in the analysis set, 478 were randomized to receive cALND and 485 SLNB alone. All patient demographics and tumor characteristics were balanced between the two arms. SN ITC was present in 6.3% patients (57/903), micro metastases in 33.0% (298), macro metastases in 60.7% (548) and 289 (34.2%) were non eligible to Z0011 trial criteria. Whole breast or chest wall irradiation was delivered in 95.9% (896/934) of patients, adjuvant chemotherapy in 69.5% (644/926), endocrine therapy in 89.6% (673/751) and the proportions were similar in the two arms. The overall rate of positive NSN was 19% (84/442) for patients with cALND. Crude rates of positive NSN according to SN status were 4.5% for ITC (1/22), 9.5% for micro metastases (13/137), 23.9% for macro metastases (61/255) and were respectively 29.36% (64/218), 9.33% (7/75) and 7.94% (10/126) when chemotherapy was administered after cALND, before cALND and for patients without chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: The main objective of SERC trial is to demonstrate non inferiority of cALND omission. A strong interaction between timing of cALND and chemotherapy with positive NSN rate was observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01717131 October 19, 2012.

Hypnosis as adjunct therapy to conscious sedation for venous access device implantation in breast cancer: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Recent reviews support that hypnosis has great potential for reducing pain and anxiety during mini-invasive surgery. Here, we assessed the feasibility of hypnotic induction session as adjunct therapy in conscious sedation for venous access device implantation. Primary outcomes were safety and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Thirty consecutive women with breast cancer were proposed adjunct of hypnosis before implantation under conscious sedation (midazolam: 0.5 mg ± bolus of Ketamin: 5 mg on demand) indicated for chemotherapy. Self-hypnosis was programmed and guided by one of two trained anesthesiologists. Implantation was performed by one of two experimented surgeons. It consisted of blind subclavian implantation of Braun ST 305 devices using a percutaneous technique adapted from Selinger's procedure. Clinical data were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. A comprehensive custom-made questionnaire recorded patient satisfaction. RESULTS: In all, 30/30 patients consented to the procedure. The median age was 54 years (range: 35-77 years). The primary procedure was successful in 29/30. One case was converted into internal jugular vein access after a first attempt. Median length time of the implantation procedure in the operative room was 20 min (range: 10-60 min). Median length time in the recovery room preceding home discharge was 65 min (range: 15-185 min). None of the patients suffered complications. The satisfaction rate was ≥90%, 27/30 patients would get hypnosis in case of reimplantation if necessary and 27/30 would recommend this procedure to others. CONCLUSION: Hypnosis under conscious sedation appears feasible and safe for port implantation under conscious sedation in cancer patients. Further studies would determine the exact value of hypnosis effectiveness.