Sentinel lymph node biopsy versus axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Minerva Surgery Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.23736/S2724-5691.24.10485-6
Damiano Gentile, Corrado Tinterri
{"title":"Sentinel lymph node biopsy versus axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy.","authors":"Damiano Gentile, Corrado Tinterri","doi":"10.23736/S2724-5691.24.10485-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) has been a cornerstone of breast cancer (BC) treatment, traditionally ensuring loco-regional control but associated with significant morbidity. Recent advancements suggest sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) as a less invasive alternative. This review examines the outcomes of omitting ALND in BC patients with positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) undergoing mastectomy. We conducted a comprehensive review of historical comparative studies and pivotal randomized clinical trials. Key sources included the ACOSOG Z0011 and SINODAR-ONE trials, alongside retrospective studies and ongoing trials like SENOMAC and POSNOC. Historical studies predominantly focused on patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery, revealing low recurrence rates and comparable survival outcomes between SLNB alone and ALND. Retrospective analyses of mastectomy patients indicated that omitting ALND did not significantly impact recurrence-free survival (RFS) or overall survival (OS). The SINODAR-ONE trial sub-analysis, involving 218 mastectomy patients, found no significant differences in 5-year OS and RFS between ALND and SLNB groups. The SENOMAC trial similarly showed non-inferior outcomes for mastectomy patients treated without ALND. The ongoing POSNOC trial aims to provide further insights, particularly focusing on the subgroup of mastectomy patients. Emerging evidence supports the feasibility of omitting ALND in BC patients with positive SLNs undergoing mastectomy, potentially reducing surgical morbidity without compromising oncological outcomes. However, further randomized clinical trials are essential to confirm these findings and refine treatment guidelines, ensuring optimal patient care.</p>","PeriodicalId":29847,"journal":{"name":"Minerva Surgery","volume":"79 5","pages":"545-557"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-5691.24.10485-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) has been a cornerstone of breast cancer (BC) treatment, traditionally ensuring loco-regional control but associated with significant morbidity. Recent advancements suggest sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) as a less invasive alternative. This review examines the outcomes of omitting ALND in BC patients with positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) undergoing mastectomy. We conducted a comprehensive review of historical comparative studies and pivotal randomized clinical trials. Key sources included the ACOSOG Z0011 and SINODAR-ONE trials, alongside retrospective studies and ongoing trials like SENOMAC and POSNOC. Historical studies predominantly focused on patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery, revealing low recurrence rates and comparable survival outcomes between SLNB alone and ALND. Retrospective analyses of mastectomy patients indicated that omitting ALND did not significantly impact recurrence-free survival (RFS) or overall survival (OS). The SINODAR-ONE trial sub-analysis, involving 218 mastectomy patients, found no significant differences in 5-year OS and RFS between ALND and SLNB groups. The SENOMAC trial similarly showed non-inferior outcomes for mastectomy patients treated without ALND. The ongoing POSNOC trial aims to provide further insights, particularly focusing on the subgroup of mastectomy patients. Emerging evidence supports the feasibility of omitting ALND in BC patients with positive SLNs undergoing mastectomy, potentially reducing surgical morbidity without compromising oncological outcomes. However, further randomized clinical trials are essential to confirm these findings and refine treatment guidelines, ensuring optimal patient care.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对接受乳房切除术的乳腺癌患者进行前哨淋巴结活检与腋窝淋巴结清扫。
腋窝淋巴结清扫术(ALND)一直是乳腺癌(BC)治疗的基石,传统上可确保局部区域控制,但发病率高。最新进展表明,前哨淋巴结活检(SLNB)是一种创伤较小的替代方法。本综述探讨了前哨淋巴结(SLN)阳性的乳腺癌患者在接受乳房切除术时省略 ALND 的结果。我们对历史比较研究和关键随机临床试验进行了全面回顾。主要资料来源包括 ACOSOG Z0011 和 SINODAR-ONE 试验、回顾性研究以及 SENOMAC 和 POSNOC 等正在进行的试验。历史研究主要关注接受保乳手术的患者,结果显示单纯 SLNB 和 ALND 的复发率低,生存率相当。对乳房切除术患者进行的回顾性分析表明,省略 ALND 对无复发生存率 (RFS) 或总生存率 (OS) 并无明显影响。SINODAR-ONE 试验的子分析涉及 218 名乳腺切除术患者,结果发现 ALND 组和 SLNB 组的 5 年 OS 和 RFS 没有明显差异。SENOMAC 试验同样显示,未接受 ALND 治疗的乳腺切除术患者的疗效并不优于其他患者。正在进行的 POSNOC 试验旨在提供进一步的见解,尤其是针对乳腺切除术患者这一亚组。新的证据支持对接受乳房切除术的SLN阳性BC患者不进行ALND治疗的可行性,这有可能在不影响肿瘤治疗效果的情况下降低手术发病率。然而,进一步的随机临床试验对于证实这些发现和完善治疗指南、确保最佳患者护理至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Minerva Surgery
Minerva Surgery SURGERY-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
320
期刊最新文献
Cohort study of skin contact on growth and development of premature infants and mother-infant relationship in neonatal intensive care unit. Comparison of effects of breast-conserving surgery and modified radical surgery on complications and survival prognosis of patients with breast cancer. Enhancing postoperative care and nursing education through internet-based continuity of care for surgical patients. Nursing strategies and effect evaluation of postoperative pain management in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery. Risk factors analysis of patients with non-small cell lung cancer complicated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease after surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1