Predictive probability of four different breast cancer nomograms for nonsentinel axillary lymph node metastasis in positive sentinel node biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Although completion axillary lymph node dissection (CALND) is the gold standard for evaluating axillary status after identification of a positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) in breast cancer, almost 40% to 70% of SLN-positive patients will have negative non-SLNs. To predict non-SLN metastases (NSLNM) in patients with a positive SLN biopsy, four different nomograms have been created. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of four different nomograms in our SLN-positive breast cancer patients. STUDY DESIGN: We identified 319 patients who had a positive SLN biopsy and CALND at our hospital during an 8-year period. Breast cancer nomograms developed by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Tenon Hospital, Cambridge University, and Stanford University were used to calculate the probability of NSLNM. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was calculated for each nomogram, and values greater than 0.70 were accepted as demonstrating considerable discrimination. RESULTS: One hundred seven of 319 patients (33.5%) had positive axillary NSLNM. The mean number of SLNs was 2.01 (range, 1 to 11 nodes), and the mean number of positive SLNs was 1.44 (range, 1 to 9 nodes). The area under the curve values were 0.70, 0.69, 0.69, and 0.64 for the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Tenon, Cambridge, and Stanford models, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center nomogram was more predictive than the other nomograms, but the Cambridge model and the Tenon model reached borderline values for accurate prediction. Nomograms developed at other institutions should be used with caution when counseling patients about the risk of additional nodal disease.

Independent Predictors of Treatment Modality for Penetrating Colon Injury.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We aimed to evaluate the independent factors of the treatment of penetrating colon injuries in a teaching and research hospital in light of some of the most commonly cited considerations affecting the decision as to whether to perform primary repair or divert. METHODS: Hospital records of patients between January 2004 and January 2007 were reviewed retrospectively. Fifty-seven patients were included and divided into two groups. Group A consisted of patients (n = 43) who had primary repair or resection and anastomosis, and Group B consisted of patients (n = 14) who had diverting colostomy. The degree of fecal contamination was assessed by reviewing the detailed operative dictation. The type of colon injury, as determined from the colon injury scale (CIS) of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), and the penetrating abdominal trauma index (PATI) were recorded. RESULTS: Age, sex, presence of shock on admission, location of the injury, and colon-related or non-colonrelated complications between the two groups were not significant. Stab or gunshot injury, operation time, degree of fecal contamination (grade 1/2/3), transfusion, PATI score, hospital stay, and associated organ injury were significantly different in the two groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Despite the fact that CIS, fecal contamination, transfusion, PATI and delayed operation affect the decision about the procedure, primary repair can be performed safely on patients with penetrating colon injuries.