Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
JAMA Oncol ; 9(11): 1557-1564, 2023 Nov 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37733364

ABSTRACT

Importance: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for axillary node staging of patients with early breast cancer (BC), but its necessity can be questioned since surgery for examination of axillary nodes is not performed with curative intent. Objective: To determine whether the omission of axillary surgery is noninferior to SLNB in patients with small BC and a negative result on preoperative axillary lymph node ultrasonography. Design, Setting, and Participants: The SOUND (Sentinel Node vs Observation After Axillary Ultra-Sound) trial was a prospective noninferiority phase 3 randomized clinical trial conducted in Italy, Switzerland, Spain, and Chile. A total of 1463 women of any age with BC up to 2 cm and a negative preoperative axillary ultrasonography result were enrolled and randomized between February 6, 2012, and June 30, 2017. Of those, 1405 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Data were analyzed from October 10, 2022, to January 13, 2023. Intervention: Eligible patients were randomized on a 1:1 ratio to receive SLNB (SLNB group) or no axillary surgery (no axillary surgery group). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point of the study was distant disease-free survival (DDFS) at 5 years, analyzed as intention to treat. Secondary end points were the cumulative incidence of distant recurrences, the cumulative incidence of axillary recurrences, DFS, overall survival (OS), and the adjuvant treatment recommendations. Results: Among 1405 women (median [IQR] age, 60 [52-68] years) included in the intention-to-treat analysis, 708 were randomized to the SLNB group, and 697 were randomized to the no axillary surgery group. Overall, the median (IQR) tumor size was 1.1 (0.8-1.5) cm, and 1234 patients (87.8%) had estrogen receptor-positive ERBB2 (formerly HER2 or HER2/neu), nonoverexpressing BC. In the SLNB group, 97 patients (13.7%) had positive axillary nodes. The median (IQR) follow-up for disease assessment was 5.7 (5.0-6.8) years in the SLNB group and 5.7 (5.0-6.6) years in the no axillary surgery group. Five-year distant DDFS was 97.7% in the SLNB group and 98.0% in the no axillary surgery group (log-rank P = .67; hazard ratio, 0.84; 90% CI, 0.45-1.54; noninferiority P = .02). A total of 12 (1.7%) locoregional relapses, 13 (1.8%) distant metastases, and 21 (3.0%) deaths were observed in the SLNB group, and 11 (1.6%) locoregional relapses, 14 (2.0%) distant metastases, and 18 (2.6%) deaths were observed in the no axillary surgery group. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, omission of axillary surgery was noninferior to SLNB in patients with small BC and a negative result on ultrasonography of the axillary lymph nodes. These results suggest that patients with these features can be safely spared any axillary surgery whenever the lack of pathological information does not affect the postoperative treatment plan. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02167490.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy , Humans , Female , Middle Aged , Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy/methods , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Breast Neoplasms/mortality , Prospective Studies , Negative Results , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/pathology , Lymph Nodes/diagnostic imaging , Lymph Nodes/surgery , Lymph Nodes/pathology , Ultrasonography , Recurrence
2.
Anticancer Res ; 40(12): 7119-7125, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33288611

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/AIM: Extraordinary restrictions aimed to limit Sars-CoV-2 spreading; they imposed a total reorganization of the health-system. Oncological treatments experienced a significant slowdown. The aim of our multicentric retrospective study was to evaluate screening suspension and surgical treatment delay during COVID-19 and the impact on breast cancer presentation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent breast surgery from March 11, 2020 to May 30, 2020 were evaluated and considered as the Lockdown group. These patients were compared with similar patients of the previous year, the Pre-Lockdown group. RESULTS: A total of 432 patients were evaluated; n=223 and n=209 in the Lockdown and Pre-lockdown-groups, respectively. At univariate analysis, waiting times, lymph-nodes involvement and cancer grading, showed a statistically significant difference (p<0.05). Multivariate analysis identified waiting-time on list (OR=1.07) as a statistically significant predictive factor of lymph node involvement. CONCLUSION: Although we did not observe a clinically evident difference in breast cancer presentation, we reported an increase in lymph node involvement.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Axilla/pathology , Axilla/surgery , Breast Neoplasms/complications , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Breast Neoplasms/virology , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/virology , Female , Humans , Lymph Node Excision , Lymph Nodes , Lymphatic Metastasis , Mastectomy , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy
3.
In Vivo ; 34(3 Suppl): 1685-1694, 2020 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32503830

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/AIM: Despite the large amount of clinical data available of Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19), not many studies have been conducted about the psychological toll on Health Care Workers (HCWs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicentric descriptive study, surveys were distributed among 4 different Breast Cancer Centers (BCC). BCCs were distinguished according to COVID-19 tertiary care hospital (COVID/No-COVID) and district prevalence (DP) (High vs. Low). DASS-21 score, PSS score and demographic data (age, sex, work) were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 51 HCWs were analyzed in the study. Age, work and sex did not demonstrate statistically significant values. Statistically significant distribution was found between DASS-21-stress score and COVID/No-COVID (p=0.043). No difference was found in the remaining DASS-21 and PSS scores, dividing the HCWs according to COVID-19-hospital and DP. CONCLUSION: Working in a COVID-19-hospital represents a factor that negatively affects psychosocial well-being. However, DP seems not to affect the psychosocial well-being of BCC HCWs. During the outbreak, psychological support for low risk HCWs should be provided regardless DP.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Cancer Care Facilities , Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Patient Care Team , Personnel, Hospital/psychology , Pneumonia, Viral/psychology , Adult , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/etiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Stress/epidemiology , Occupational Stress/etiology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Prevalence , Protective Devices/supply & distribution , Psychosocial Support Systems , Rome , Severity of Illness Index , Tertiary Care Centers , Uncertainty , Workload
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...