Axillary clearance is an established part of the management of breast cancer. The aim of this study was to determine the number of retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) after axillary clearance surgery.

Over a 2-year period (January 2020-December 2022), data from 96 patients, who underwent axillary clearance surgery in Khartoum locality, were collected. Multivariate analysis was used to assess the yield of axillary clearance.

The mean of total number of retrieved LNs was 12.8, the mean of positive LNs was 2.6. There was statistical correlation between the total number of retrieved LNs and total number of positive LNs (P = 0.000). 53.1% of patients had stage II breast cancer, with 91% of them having invasive ductal carcinoma. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy decreased the total number of retrieved LNs (P = 0.001). No statistically significant correlation was found between previous axillary surgery and the number of the retrieved LNs (P > 0.05).

There were enough axillary LNs for histological studies; the total number of positive LNs increased with the increase in total number of retrieved LNs. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy reduced the yield of axillary clearance.

Randomized trials have shown that axillary clearance (AC) can safely be omitted in patients with sentinel lymph node-positive breast cancer. At the same time, de-escalation of chemotherapy in postmenopausal patients with ER+HER2- breast cancer may depend on detailed axillary nodal stage. The aim of this pre-specified secondary analysis of the SENOMAC trial was to investigate whether the choice of axillary staging affected the proportion of patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, and recurrence-free survival (RFS).

Proportion receiving adjuvant chemotherapy was calculated according to AC or sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) only, menopausal status, and region of inclusion, for 2168 patients with clinically node-negative ER+HER2- breast cancer and 1-2 sentinel lymph node macrometastases included in the SENOMAC trial.

In premenopausal patients, 514 out of 615 patients (83.6%) received adjuvant chemotherapy with no significant difference between randomization arms. In postmenopausal patients, the proportion receiving chemotherapy varied considerably by region and country (36.0-82.4%). In Denmark, where 194 out of 539 postmenopausal patients (36.0%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, rates differed significantly between the AC and the SLNB only arm (41.3% vs 31.4%, p = 0.019). After a median follow-up of 44.88 months for Danish postmenopausal patients, no significant difference was seen in 5-year RFS, which was 91% (85.6%-96.6%) for the SLNB only and 90.9% (86.3%-95.6%) for the AC arm (p = 0.42).

When omitting axillary clearance, and thus reducing the risk of long-term arm morbidity, potential under-treatment of postmenopausal patients with ER+HER2- breast cancer may require the development of new predictive and imaging tools.

Swedish Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, Nordic Cancer Union, Swedish Breast Cancer Association.

Oncoplastic surgery is an important component of the management of breast cancer. As prognosis has improved, the need for proficient techniques to achieve disease eradication while maintaining cosmesis for naturally appearing breasts has gained importance. This study describes an easy-to-learn modified oncoplastic technique for patients undergoing breast-conserving treatment.

Tumor resection is performed through different peri-areolar, inframammary, or radial incisions. To reduce the size of the surgical defect created after tissue resection, an internal purse-string is performed parallel to the chest wall or base of the wound with subsequent staggering in three or more layers as needed, while maintaining the parallel orientation of the needle. This is followed by the creation and overlapping of internal breast tissue flaps that are rearranged to decrease the dead space with the aim of improving cosmesis. The redundant skin is removed for the skin envelope to maintain shape. The wound is closed in layers. We also describe steps in performing sentinel lymph node and tumor extraction through the same periareolar, inframammary, or radial incisions for tumors located in outer quadrants. Following closure, contour and projection of the breast were maintained without indentation or loss of projection, with a symmetrical appearance to the contralateral side.

This modified oncoplastic lift, lymphatic excision, and reconstruction (MOLLER) technique can be easily learned and used by surgeons who treat cancer patients and have limited oncoplastic training. It uses basic known surgical principles to decrease the size of the defect created while minimizing the need for larger incisions/pedicles.

Data from recently trials have provided practice-changing recommendations in management of the axilla in early breast cancer (eBC). However, further controversies have been raised, resulting in heterogeneous diffusion of these recommendations. Our purpose was to obtain a better homogeneity.

In 2021, the Tuscan Breast Network (TBN) established a consensus with the aim to update recommendations in this area. We performed a literature review on axillary management in eBC patients which led to an expert Delphi consensus aiming to explore the gray areas, build consensus and propose evidence-based suggestions for an appropriate management. Thereafter, we investigate their implementation in clinical practice.

(1) DCIS patients should have SLN biopsy only in case of mastectomy or in conservative surgery if tumor is in a location that would preclude future nodal sampling or in case of a mass; (2) ALND may be omitted for 1-2 positive SLN patients undergoing BCS in T1-2 tumors with 1-2 SLN positive, eligible for whole-breast irradiation and adjuvant systemic therapies; (3) consider the option of RNI in patients with 1-3 positive lymph nodes and one or more high-risk characteristics; (4) the population identified in 2) should NOT undergo lymph node irradiation as an alternative to axillary surgery and (5) patients with clinically (pre-operatively) positive axilla, or undergoing primary systemic therapy, or outside the criteria reported in 2) must receive additional ALND and/or RT as per local policy.

This consensus provided a practical tool to stimulate local and national breast surgical and radiotherapy protocols.

Sentinel node biopsy (SNB) is routinely performed in people with node-negative early breast cancer to assess the axilla. SNB has no proven therapeutic benefit. Nodal status information obtained from SNB helps in prognostication and can influence adjuvant systemic and locoregional treatment choices. However, the redundancy of the nodal status information is becoming increasingly apparent. The accuracy of radiological assessment of the axilla, combined with the strong influence of tumour biology on systemic and locoregional therapy requirements, has prompted many to consider alternative options for SNB. SNB contributes significantly to decreased quality of life in early breast cancer patients. Substantial improvements in workflow and cost could accrue by removing SNB from early breast cancer treatment. We review the current viewpoints and ideas for alternative options for assessing and managing a clinically negative axilla in patients with early breast cancer (EBC). Omitting SNB in selected cases or replacing SNB with a non-invasive predictive model appear to be viable options based on current literature.

With the improved survival for breast cancer there is now an increased focus on quality of life after treatment. Axillary surgery is known to be associated with significant risk of arm morbidity feared by the patients, and several studies have shown de-escalation is possible in different settings. In this review, an overview will be given on new techniques and procedures for de-escalation of axillary surgery in breast cancer patients and the subsequent implications for adjuvant systemic treatment.

This study is a narrative review. PubMed was searched for relevant publications in English published between January 2018-June 2023. Only publications with major impact on clinical practice have been included with main emphasis on meta-analysis. In addition, Clinicaltrial.gov has been searched for on-going studies.

New tracer techniques are described as well as the on-going reduction in axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) at primary surgery even in node positive patients, and the axillary staging possibilities after down-staging of the axilla by neoadjuvant treatment. Finally axillary staging at local recurrence and in case of ductal carcinoma in situ is described.

ALND is no longer routinely recommended in many node positive patients and further de-escalation is investigated. The lack of knowledge on precise axillary status will require cooperating studies between oncologists and breast surgeons in order to avoid escalation of systemic treatment due to the lack of applicability of trial eligibility criteria. Furthermore, investigations on the use of axillary imaging for staging are needed.

Recent data from the ACOSOG Z0011 trial suggest that axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) may not be necessary for patients with positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) receiving breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with irradiation. However, consensus statements and guidelines have recommended that patients undergoing mastectomy with tumor-positive sentinel node undergo completion ALND. In this study, we compared the locoregional recurrence rate of patients with tumor-positive sentinel nodes among three groups: mastectomy with SLNB, mastectomy with ALND and BCS with SLNB.

We identified 6,163 women with invasive breast cancer who underwent surgical resection at our institution between January 2000 and December 2011. Clinicopathologic data obtained from the prospectively collected medical database were analyzed retrospectively. Among the patients with sentinel node positive, mastectomy with SLNB was performed in 39 cases, mastectomy with ALND in 181 cases, and BCS with SLNB in 165 cases. The primary end point was the loco-regional recurrence rate.

Clinicopathologic characteristics were similar among the groups. There were no cases of loco-regional recurrence in the sentinel groups. At a median follow-up of 61.0 months (last follow-up May 2013), the loco-regional recurrence rate of each group was 0% for BCS with SLNB and mastectomy with SLNB only, and 1.7% for mastectomy with ALND (p=0.182).

In our study, there was no significant difference in loco-regional recurrence rates between groups. This result lends weight to the argument that SLNB without ALND may be a reasonable management for selected patients with appropriate surgery and adjuvant systemic therapy.

In locally advanced breast cancer, axillary lymph node dissection remains a pivotal component of surgical therapy. Apart from this, it has been mostly replaced by sentinel node biopsy. Complications after axillary dissection include wound infection, neuropathy, lymphedema and-most frequently-seroma. In this retrospective multi-centre study, we compared the use of LigaSure^TM with monopolar electrocautery regarding perioperative outcome.

A retrospective data analysis from female breast cancer patients who underwent axillary dissection at two breast centres in Austria that are using two different surgical techniques was performed for this study. We compared the rate of complications and re-operations, length of hospital stay, time to drain removal, total drain fluid, seroma formation after drain removal, number of seroma aspirations and total seroma fluid.

Seventy one female patients with a median age of 63 (30-83) were included in this study. In 35 patients LigaSure^TM and in 36 monopolar cautery was used for axillary dissection. There was no significant difference regarding intraoperative complications and rate of re-operations between the two groups (2.9 vs. 5.6%; p = 1 and 2.9 vs. 13.9%; p = 0.199). The time to drain removal and the length of hospital stay was similar in both groups. A significant difference in the occurence of postoperative wound infection could also not be shown. However, we found a significantly smaller total drain fluid in the LigaSure^TM-group compared to the cautery-group (364.6 ml vs. 643.4 ml; p = 0.004). Seroma formation after drain removal was more frequent in the LigaSure^TM-group (68.6 vs. 41.7%; p = 0.032) with a higher number of outpatient seroma aspirations (2.0 vs. 0.9; p = 0.005).

LigaSure^TM and monopolar cautery provide equivalent techniques in axillary lymph node dissection with comparable postoperative outcomes.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is standard care as a staging procedure in patients with invasive breast cancer. The axillary recurrence rate, even after positive SLNB, is low. This raises serious doubts regarding the clinical value of SLNB in early breast cancer. The purpose of this study is to select patients with low suspected axillary burden in whom SLNB might be omitted.

We retrospectively analyzed 2015 primary breast cancer patients between 2007 and 2015, with 982 patients allocated to the training and 961 to the validation cohort. Variables associated with nodal disease were analyzed and used to build a nomogram for predicting nodal disease.

A total of 32.8% of patients had macrometastatic disease. A predictive model was constructed based on age, cN0, morphology, grade, multifocality, and tumor size with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.83. Considering a false-negative rate of 5%, 32.8% of patients could be spared axillary surgery. In a subanalysis of patients with relatively favorable characteristics, 26.8% had less than 5% chance of macrometastases.

We present a model with excellent predictive value that can select one-third of patients in whom SLNB is deemed not necessary because of less than 5% chance of nodal involvement. Whether missing 1 in 20 patients with macrometastatic disease is worthwhile balanced against preventing side-effects of the SLN procedure remains to be established. A number of ongoing large prospective trials evaluating the outcome of omitting SLNB are awaited. Meanwhile, this nomogram may be used for individual decision-making.

To evaluate dosimetric differences in unintended dose to the lower axilla between 3D-standard (3DCRT), tangential beam forward intensity modulated radiotherapy (F-IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The objective is to evaluate whether results of clinical trials, such as the ACOSOG-Z011 trial, that evaluated omission of axillary clearance can be extrapolated towards more conformal techniques like VMAT.

Twenty-five consecutive patients treated with whole breast radiotherapy alone (WBRT) using a F-IMRT technique were identified. Three additional plans were created for every patient: one plan using a single 270° arc (VMAT 1x270°), another using two small ≤90° opposing arcs (VMAT 2x < 90°) and thirdly a 3DCRT plan without F-IMRT. Axillary levels I-II were contoured after the treatment plans were made.

The volume of the axilla level I that was covered by the 50% isodose (V50%) was significantly higher for VMAT 2x < 90° (71.3 cm³, 84% of structure volume, p < 0.001) and VMAT 1x270° (68.8 cm³, 81%, p < 0.01) compared to 3DCRT (60.3 cm³, 71%) and F-IMRT (60.8 cm³, 72%). The V50% to the axilla level II, however, was low for all techniques: 12.3 cm³ (12%); 8.9 cm³ (9%); 4.3 cm³ (4%); 4.4 cm³ (4%) for VMAT 2x < 90°, VMAT 1x270°, 3DCRT, F-IMRT, respectively. For the higher doses (V90% and above), no clinically relevant differences were seen between the different modalities.

WBRT treatments with VMAT do not lead to a significant reduction of the unintended axillary dose in comparison with a tangential beam setup. Hence, concerning tumor control, VMAT can be applied to clinical situations similar to the Z0011 trial. The intermediate axillary dose is higher with VMAT, but the clinical consequence of this difference on toxicity is unknown.

To provide recommendations on the best strategies for the management and on the best timing and treatment (surgical and radiotherapeutic) of the axilla for patients with early-stage breast cancer.

Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) and ASCO convened a Working Group and Expert Panel to develop evidence-based recommendations informed by a systematic review of the literature.

This guideline endorsed two recommendations of the ASCO 2017 guideline for the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with early-stage breast cancer and expanded on that guideline with recommendations for radiotherapy interventions, timing of staging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), and mapping modalities. Overall, the ASCO 2017 guideline, seven high-quality systematic reviews, 54 unique studies, and 65 corollary trials formed the evidentiary basis of this guideline.

Recommendations are issued for each of the objectives of this guideline: (1) To determine which patients with early-stage breast cancer require axillary staging, (2) to determine whether any further axillary treatment is indicated for women with early-stage breast cancer who did not receive NAC and are sentinel lymph node-negative at diagnosis, (3) to determine which axillary strategy is indicated for women with early-stage breast cancer who did not receive NAC and are pathologically sentinel lymph node-positive at diagnosis (after a clinically node-negative presentation), (4) to determine what axillary treatment is indicated and what the best timing of axillary treatment for women with early-stage breast cancer is when NAC is used, and (5) to determine which are the best methods for identifying sentinel nodes.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

There is a trend towards de-escalation in early breast cancer axillary surgery. In the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z-0011 trial, observation was shown to be non-inferior in terms of overall survival to complementary axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) in patients with up to two sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastases. The study included patients with T1-T2 invasive breast cancer, clinically node negative, undergoing breast-conserving surgery with SLN biopsy, followed by systemic therapy and radiotherapy. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of applying these ACOSOG Z-0011 inclusion criteria in routine practice.

This retrospective observational study was conducted in a French comprehensive cancer center where patients treated for breast cancer with primary surgery were prospectively included between 2010 and 2016. Patients meeting ACOSOG Z-0011 inclusion criteria were analyzed.

Among the 1900 included patients, 1497 (79 %) met the ACOSOG Z-0011 criteria before surgery. Of these, 390 (20 %) had one or two metastatic SLN and could have avoided cALND. Out of these patients, 319 (81 %) presented cT1 tumors. During the study period, cALND was performed in 320 (82 %) patients and was free of metastases in 80 % of cases, having an impact on eligibility for adjuvant chemotherapy in only 3 (0.8 %) patients.

In situations of primary breast cancer surgery, use of ACOSOG Z-0011 criteria could reduce the rate of cALND by 20 %. Further studies are needed to help select patients for whom abstention from any axillary surgery would be reasonable.

As life expectancy is on the rise, it is predicted that a growing number of people will live beyond the age of 65 and therefore a higher number of elderly women will have breast diseases requiring significant health care and services. This study is aimed at investigating the characteristics, the treatment and outcomes of women older than 65 years old treated for breast diseases at our institution. This was a retrospective study covering the period from January 2003 to December 2011. It involved 92 patients aged over 65 and treated for breast disease in the Maternity Center of Monastir, Tunisia. The data included characteristics of patients and tumors, treatment and outcomes that were obtained through data extraction sheets. We reported a study of 92 women over the age of 65 of whom 77 women had malignant breast disease (83.6%) and 15 benign breast diseases (16.4%). Breast cancer was discovered at a mean age of 72.5 ± 6.6 years. Distant metastases were found in 5.3% of cases and infiltrative ductal carcinoma was detected in 85.7% of patients. Hormonal receptors were positive for estrogens in 64.7% of cases. Surgical treatment was performed in 73 patients and adjuvant treatment was prescribed for 67 women (86%). The complication rate was 16.6% among the 73 patients who underwent surgery. Benign breast diseases represented 16.3% of the mammary pathologies. Abscesses and fibrocystic mastopathy were the most frequent histological diagnoses. Despite great interest in geriatric gynecological pathology worldwide, many questions related to how optimally treat this patient population remain unanswered. In this study, a surgical treatment was performed in 94.8% of breast cancer patients and the complication rate was 16.6%.

Purpose The aim of this official guideline coordinated and published by the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) and the German Cancer Society (DKG) was to optimize the screening, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care of breast cancer. Method The process of updating the S3 guideline published in 2012 was based on the adaptation of identified source guidelines. They were combined with reviews of evidence compiled using PICO (Patients/Interventions/Control/Outcome) questions and with the results of a systematic search of literature databases followed by the selection and evaluation of the identified literature. The interdisciplinary working groups took the identified materials as their starting point and used them to develop suggestions for recommendations and statements, which were then modified and graded in a structured consensus process procedure. Recommendations Part 2 of this short version of the guideline presents recommendations for the therapy of primary, recurrent and metastatic breast cancer. Loco-regional therapies are de-escalated in the current guideline. In addition to reducing the safety margins for surgical procedures, the guideline also recommends reducing the radicality of axillary surgery. The choice and extent of systemic therapy depends on the respective tumor biology. New substances are becoming available, particularly to treat metastatic breast cancer.

Axillary ultrasound staging (AUS) is an important tool to guide clinical decisions in breast cancer therapy, especially regarding axillary surgery but also radiation therapy. It is unknown whether biological subtypes influence axillary staging using ultrasound (AUS).

This is a retrospective single center analysis. All patients with breast cancer, a preoperative axillary ultrasound and a complete surgical axillary staging were included between 1999 and 2014, except patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). The results of the AUS were compared with final pathological results. Biological subtypes were identified by immunohistochemistry.

583 women were included in the study. Sensitivity, Specificity, positive and negative predictive value for AUS were 39%, 96%, 91% and 83%. While sensitivity was significantly lower in Luminal A and B patients (25.0%; 39.8%) as compared to non Luminal breast cancer patients (TN 68.8%; Her2+ 71.4%; p = 0.0032), there were no significant differences between the groups with respect to specificity, PPV and NPV.

Solely regarding sensitivity of AUS, our study could show significant differences between biological subtypes of breast cancer with lower sensitivity in Luminal patients. While PPV was excellent, standing for a low overtreatment rate using AUS for clinical decision making, sensitivity was poor overall, comparable to the results of other studies.

Local treatment of the axilla in clinically node-negative (cN0) early breast cancer patients with routine sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is debated for various reasons: i) pN staging information may not be necessary for the postoperative treatment decision regarding adjuvant systemic therapy in the great majority of patients; ii) the SLNB-positive rate is declining below 20% in specialized breast centers; iii) albeit being a minimally invasive procedure, SLNB causes a significant reduction in quality of life in 23% of patients; and iv) previous randomized trials from the pre-SLNB era did not show a disadvantage for patients without axillary surgery with regard to overall survival. These data support the hypothesis that avoiding axillary treatment in patients with clinically and sonographically unsuspicious lymph nodes seems to be a safe option, although omitting axillary surgery may increase the risk of locoregional recurrence. Currently, the information regarding node-positive status is essential to guide postoperative treatment such as systemic or radiation therapies in a non-negligible minority of patients. Three ongoing prospective European trials (SOUND, INSEMA, BOOG 2013-08) with axillary observation alone versus SLNB in cN0 patients and primary breast-conserving surgery have the objective to evaluate oncologic safety when omitting SLNB.

In the past decades, breast surgeons have changed the clinical practice in the surgical treatment of breast cancer, by performing sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) instead of performing axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in axillary lymph node clinically negative breast cancer patients. ALND can also be avoided in SLN-positive patients who meet the Z-0011 criteria. However, the postoperative complications of SLNB and ALND, such as the secondary upper extremity lymphedema, are common and need effective solutions to prevent as soon as possible. The axillary reverse mapping (ARM) technique has been developed to map and preserve arm lymphatic drainage during ALND and/or SLNB, thereby minimizing arm lymphedema. However, the success of ARM in reducing lymphedema has not been exactly determined. If ARM can be confirmed to be both effective and oncologically safe in preventing lymphedema, this technique should be recommended in the management of breast cancer treatment.

T1 breast cancer patients have favorable clinical outcomes, so that whether axillary stating (AS) surgery can be omitted in these patients is still unclear. This retrospective cohort study developed a nomogram to predict the cancer-specific survival (CSS) of T1 breast cancer patients with and without AS and estimate the survival benefit of AS in these patients.We used surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database to identify 232,195 breast cancer patients with T1 tumors diagnosed between 1990 and 2008. In the training cohort, we used the Kaplan-Meier method and the competing risk analysis, with non-CSS as the competing risk, to screen for prognostic factors for CSS. A nomogram to predict the CSS, with receiving AS or not as one of the predictors, was developed and externally validated, using the C-index and calibration plots. The survival benefit of AS can be estimated by the difference of 2 predicted CSS, when the patient was considered as having and not having AS.With a median follow-up of 109 months, the CSS of the study population were 96.3%, 92.3%, and 88.5% at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. Significant predictors for CSS identified in the training cohort were used to develop a nomogram, which was validated internally [C-index = 0.707, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.702-0.712] and externally (C-index = 0.704, 95% CI 0.698-0.710). The nomogram was well calibrated. With this nomogram, AS was predicted to have less than 2% benefit of 5-, 10-, and 15-year CSS in 60.6% (140,599/232,195), 15.5% (36,074/232,195), and 8.6% (20,043/232,195) of the entire study population, respectively.The new nomogram can accurately predict the CSS of T1 breast cancer patients, and also be able to estimate the survival benefit of AS in these patients. Prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is the standard of care for axillary staging in clinically node-negative (cN0) breast cancer patients without neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). The application of SLNB in patients receiving NAC has also been explored. Evidence supports its use after NAC in pretreatment cN0 patients. Nonetheless, its routine use in all the pretreatment node-positive patients who become cN0 after NAC is unjustified due to the unacceptably high false-negative rate, which can be improved in a subset of patients. Axillary surgery omission in selected patients with a low risk of ALN metastasis has gained more and more research interest because the SLNs are tumor-free in more than 70% of all patients. To avoid drawbacks of conventional mapping methods, novel techniques for SLN detection have been developed and shown to be highly accurate in patients with early breast cancer. This article reviews the progress in SLNB in patients with breast cancer.

The aim of the present study was to assess the sensitivity, specificity and practicality of using a one-step nucleic acid amplification (OSNA) assay during breast cancer staging surgery to predict and discriminate between at least 2 involved nodes and more than 2 involved nodes and facilitate the decision to provide axillary conservation in the presence of a low total axillary node tumour burden. A total of 700 consecutive patients, not treated with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, received intraoperative sentinel lymph node (SLN) analysis using OSNA for cT1-T3 cN0 invasive breast cancer. Patients with at least one macrometastasis on whole-node SLN analysis underwent axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). The total tumour load (TTL) of the macrometastatic SLN sample was compared with the non-sentinel lymph node (NSLN) status of the ALND specimen using routine histological assessment. In total, 122/683 patients (17.9%) were found to have an OSNA TTL indicative of macrometastasis. In addition, 45/122 (37%) patients had NSLN metastases on ALND with a total positive lymph node burden exceeding the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 trial threshold of two macrometastatic nodes. The TTL negative predictive value was 0.975 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.962-0.988]. The area under the curve for the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.81-0.91), indicating that SLN TTL was associated with the prediction (and partitioning) of total axillary disease burden. OSNA identifies a TTL threshold value where, in the presence of involved SLNs, ALND may be avoided. This technique offers objective confidence in adopting conservative management of the axilla in patients with SLN macrometastases.

To assess the differences in unintended regional nodal irradiation between free breathing (FB) and deep-inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) during tangential field irradiation.

We randomly chose 32 patients from our database who underwent both DIBH and FB treatment planning. Contouring of the axillary lymph node levels (LI, LII, and LIII) was performed retrospectively according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group contouring atlas. We assessed the center of mass of each level and the planning target volume, as well as the dose distribution (Dmean, Dmedian, Dmax, Dmin, V30, and V40) in the lymph node levels I-III. Subsequently center of mass movement and dose changes due to deep inspiration treatment planning were calculated.

All lymph node levels showed significant (P<.001) movement in anterior and cranial directions due to DIBH. The overall median movement (range) in the x (lateral), y (anterior-posterior), and z (cranio-caudal) directions was 0.1 cm (0.0-1.1 cm), 0.9 cm (0.1-2.0 cm), and 1.2 cm (0.0-2.6 cm), respectively. Movement of the planning target volume showed significant correlation (r=0.72, r=0.63, r=0.63; P<.05) with levels I-III. The average Dmean during FB/DIBH was as follows: LI 33.9 Gy/30.8 Gy (P<.001), LII 23.7 Gy/24.1 Gy (P=.74), and LIII 14.0 Gy/15.6 Gy (P=.14). V30 was as follows: LI 63.8%/56.5% (P<.001), LII 44.6%/45.5% (P=.76), and LIII 24.2%/27.8% (P<.05). V40 was as follows: LI 58.9%/51.0% (P<.001), LII 39.3%/40.1% (P=.79), and LIII 20.4%/23.9% (P<.05).

Deep-inspiration breath-hold results in a significant dose reduction in level I. Only minor changes in dose distribution were recorded for levels II and III. Thus, DIBH seems to have an impact on unintended regional nodal irradiation as compared with FB.

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the preservation of the intercostobrachial nerve on the quality of life of patients operated for breast cancer.

This study was ancillary to cost comparison study of axillary sentinel lymph node detection and axillary lymphadenectomy in early breast cancer. It was a prospective multicenter, observational, non-randomized study. The quality of life was assessed using two questionnaires: QLQ-C30 and specific module QLQ-BR23 Surveys have been performed before initiation of surgery, one week, and 1 month, 8 months and 12 months after discharge from hospitalization for the first surgical procedure.

Five hundred and seventy-eight patients with preservation of intercostobrachial nerve without axillary lymph node dissection (C- P+), 85 without preservation of nerve and axillary lymph node dissection (C+P-) and 57 with preservation of nerve and axillary lymph node dissection (C+P+) have been included in the study. The changing arm symptoms score was significantly different during follow-up between the three groups (P<0.001). This difference between the two groups C- P+ and C+P+ was significant clinically at one week [16.9, IC95%: 11.9 to 22 (P<0.01)], and persisted for up to 12 months [9.9, IC95%: 3.2 à16.6 (P=0.022)]. There was no difference between the group C+P- and C+P+. Results for physical functioning score were similar.

Preservation of the intercostobral nerve is not associated with better quality of life. Only axillary lymph node dissection has an impact on quality of life.

Intraoperative assessment of sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) has the advantage of allowing breast cancer patients with tumor-positive SLNs to avoid a second surgery by immediately proceeding to axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). However, there are several reasons why the use of intraoperative assessment should be questioned. Whereas ALND was traditionally advised for all breast cancer patients with tumor-positive lymph nodes for axillary staging and locoregional control, more recent studies have demonstrated safety of omitting ALND in a substantial number of patients. In addition, there are concerns about the accuracy of intraoperative assessment methods including frozen section analysis, touch preparation cytology and one-step nucleic acid amplification. Moreover, intraoperative assessment of SLNs denies patients the opportunity to contribute to their treatment planning. In our opinion, intraoperative assessment of axillary lymph nodes should be reserved for patients who still have a strict indication for ALND. Patients with clinical node negative disease (cN0) and one or two positive SLNs can be safely treated with breast conserving surgery and radiotherapy. There has been more controversy for cN0 patients who are treated with mastectomy since radiotherapy is not routinely administered in these patients. However, there is increasing evidence that ALND may be omitted in patients undergoing mastectomy who have a low tumor-burden in their SLNs. Therefore, we defend the position that in cN0 patients undergoing mastectomy, SLNB should be performed and full pathologic evaluation of the SLN should be awaited. In cN0 patients undergoing neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) intraoperative assessment of SLNs can be omitted since ALND will not provide therapeutic benefit. It is being hypothesized that patients with limited axillary disease prior to NST who remain node-positive after NST could be treated safely with axillary radiotherapy instead of ALND. In these patients, omitting intraoperative assessment might be a reasonable option. In patients with extensive nodal disease prior to NST intraoperative assessment of axillary lymph nodes should be performed.

Axillary lymph node status remains an important prognostic factor in early breast cancer. It is regarded as an indicator for (neo)adjuvant systemic treatment and postoperative radiotherapy of the regional lymphatics. Commenced in September 2015, the INSEMA trial is investigating whether operative determination of nodal status as part of breast conserving therapy (BCT) for early stage breast cancer (c/iT1-2 c/iN0) can be avoided without reducing oncological safety. After inclusion of 1001 patients there was general acceptance of the complex study design by patients and study doctors so that recruitment for the first randomisation (axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy [SLNB]: yes or no) achieved predicted case numbers. The second randomisation however (SLNB alone versus complete axillary dissection when one or two macrometastases are present at SLNB) recruited fewer cases than expected for the following three reasons: a) the 13 % rate of one or two macrometastases after SLNB in the INSEMA trial collective was lower than expected; b) around 20 % of patients refused the second randomisation; c) there was delayed inclusion of the Austrian study centres, which only recruited for the second randomisation. Lack of knowledge of nodal status when SLNB is avoided represents a new challenge for the postoperative tumour board. In particular decisions on chemotherapy for luminal-like tumours and irradiation of the lymphatics (excluding axilla) must be guided by tumour biological parameters. The INSEMA trial does not provide answers to some important questions, e.g. it remains unclear whether patients without SLNB can be offered partial breast irradiation alone in low-risk situations and whether SLNB can also be avoided in patients with stage T1-2 tumours who have a mastectomy indication.

To compare the efficacy of axillary radiotherapy (ART) with that of completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) in clinically node-negative breast cancer patients with a positive sentinel lymph node.

A literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library by using the search terms "breast cancer", "sentinel lymph node biopsy", "axillary radiotherapy" or "regional node irradiation" for articles published between 2004 and 2016. Only randomized controlled trials that included patients with positive sentinel nodes were included in the meta-analysis.

Two randomized controlled trials and three retrospective studies were identified. The reported overall survival rate (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-1.43, P = 0.365), disease-free survival rate (HR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.58-1.45, P = 0.144), and axillary recurrence rate (1.2% and 0.4%, and 1.3% and 0.8%, respectively) were similar in both groups. The absence of knowledge on the extent of nodal involvement in the ART group appeared to have no major impact on the administration of adjuvant systemic therapy.

ART is not inferior to cALND in the patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer who had a positive sentinel lymph node. Information obtained by using cALND after SLNB may have no major impact on the administration of adjuvant systemic therapy.

Axillary surgery is an established part of the management of primary breast cancer. It provides staging information to guide adjuvant therapy and potentially local control of axillary disease. Several alternative approaches to axillary surgery are available, most of which aim to spare a proportion of women the morbidity of complete axillary dissection.

To assess the benefits and harms of alternative approaches to axillary surgery (including omitting such surgery altogether) in terms of overall survival; local, regional and distant recurrences; and adverse events.

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Pre-MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov on 12 March 2015 without language restrictions. We also contacted study authors and checked reference lists.

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including women with clinically defined operable primary breast cancer conducted to compare axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) with no axillary surgery, axillary sampling or sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB); RCTs comparing axillary sampling with SLNB or no axillary surgery; RCTs comparing SLNB with no axillary surgery; and RCTs comparing ALND with or without radiotherapy (RT) versus RT alone.

Two review authors independently assessed each potentially relevant trial for inclusion. We independently extracted outcome data, risk of bias information and study characteristics from all included trials. We pooled data according to trial interventions, and we used hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event outcomes and odds ratios (OR) for binary outcomes.

We included 26 RCTs in this review. Studies were at low or unclear risk of selection bias. Blinding was not done, but this was only considered a source of bias for outcomes with potential for subjectivity in measurements. We found no RCTs of axillary sampling versus SLNB, axillary sampling versus no axillary surgery or SLNB versus no axillary surgery. No axillary surgery versus ALND Ten trials involving 3849 participants compared no axillary surgery versus ALND. Moderate quality evidence showed no important differences between overall survival of women in the two groups (HR 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.17; 3849 participants; 10 studies) although no axillary surgery increased the risk of locoregional recurrence (HR ranging from 1.10 to 3.06; 20,863 person-years of follow-up; four studies). It was uncertain whether no surgery increased the risk of distant metastasis compared with ALND (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.30; 946 participants; two studies). Low-quality evidence indicated no axillary surgery decreased the risk of lymphoedema compared with ALND (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.43; 1714 participants; four studies). Axillary sampling versus ALND Six trials involving 1559 participants compared axillary sampling versus ALND. Low-quality evidence indicated similar effectiveness of axillary sampling compared with ALND in terms of overall survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.21; 967 participants; three studies) but it was unclear whether axillary sampling led to increased risk of local recurrence compared with ALND (HR 1.41, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.12; 1404 participants; three studies). The relative effectiveness of axillary sampling and ALND for locoregional recurrence (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.20; 406 participants; one study) and distant metastasis was uncertain (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.49; 406 participants; one study). Lymphoedema was less likely after axillary sampling than after ALND (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.81; 80 participants; one study). SLNB versus ALND Seven trials involving 9426 participants compared SLNB with ALND. Moderate-quality evidence showed similar overall survival following SLNB compared with ALND (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.25; 6352 participants; three studies; moderate-quality evidence). Differences in local recurrence (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.24 to 3.77; 516 participants; one study), locoregional recurrence (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.24; 5611 participants; one study) and distant metastasis (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.53; 516 participants; one study) were uncertain. However, studies showed little absolute difference in the aforementioned outcomes. Lymphoedema was less likely after SLNB than ALND (OR ranged from 0.04 to 0.60; three studies; 1965 participants; low-quality evidence). Three studies including 1755 participants reported quality of life: Investigators in two studies found quality of life better after SLNB than ALND, and in the other study observed no difference. RT versus ALND Four trials involving 2585 participants compared RT alone with ALND (with or without RT). High-quality evidence indicated that overall survival was reduced among women treated with radiotherapy alone compared with those treated with ALND (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.21; 2469 participants; four studies), and local recurrence was less likely in women treated with radiotherapy than in those treated with ALND (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.99; 22,256 person-years of follow-up; four studies). Risk of distant metastasis was similar for radiotherapy alone as for ALND (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.25; 1313 participants; one study), and whether lymphoedema was less likely after RT alone than ALND remained uncertain (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.44; 200 participants; one study). Less surgery versus ALND When combining results from all trials, treatment involving less surgery was associated with reduced overall survival compared with ALND (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.17; 6478 participants; 18 studies). Whether local recurrence was reduced with less axillary surgery when compared with ALND was uncertain (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.09; 24,176 participant-years of follow up; eight studies). Locoregional recurrence was more likely with less surgery than with ALND (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.78; 26,880 participant-years of follow-up; seven studies). Whether risk of distant metastasis was increased after less axillary surgery compared with ALND was uncertain (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.20; 2665 participants; five studies). Lymphoedema was less likely after less axillary surgery than with ALND (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.46; 3964 participants; nine studies).No studies reported on disease control in the axilla.

This review confirms the benefit of SLNB and axillary sampling as alternatives to ALND for axillary staging, supporting the view that ALND of the clinically and radiologically uninvolved axilla is no longer acceptable practice in people with breast cancer.

A prospective observational clinical study was undertaken to assess the accuracy of preoperative Axillary Ultrasound (AUS) plus Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology (FNAC) as well as and its clinical utility, that is the capacity of the information supplied by the test to guide the clinical decision-making.

from January 2013 to August 2015, 400 female patients with pT1-3 cN0 operable breast cancer underwent AUS with FNAC at the Breast Unit of the "IRCCS San Martino-IST" in Genoa (Italy).

127 out of 400 patients (31.7%) had axillary lymph node metastases; in 69 out of 127 node-positive patients (54.3%) AUS detected at least one abnormal lymph node, and in 56 out of 127 patients (44.1%) the abnormal sonographic pattern of the lymph node was coupled with a positive FNAC finding. No false-positive finding by both AUS-alone or combined AUS/FNAC was observed. AUS-alone had sensitivity of 54.3% (69/127), specificity of 100% (273/273), PPV of 100% (69/69), NPV of 82.5% (273/331), and accuracy of 85.5% (342/400). Combined AUS/FNAC had sensitivity of 44.1% (56/127), specificity of 100% (273/273), PPV of 100% (56/56), NPV of 79.4% (273/344), and accuracy of 82.2% (329/400).

AUS-alone or combined AUS/FNAC had a high accuracy rate coupled with a more than satisfactory efficiency due to their low costs and easy access for the preoperative staging of the axilla. Notably, AUS-alone might be suggested for the preoperative staging of patients with early stage breast cancer because FNAC did not increased the specificity but reduced the sensitivity of the technique. Patients with negative findings might undergo either SLNB or close observation while waiting for the definitive results of ongoing SOUND randomized clinical trial.

Omission of completion axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) is a standard practice in patients with breast cancer (BC) and negative sentinel nodes (SNs) but has shown insufficient evidence to be recommended in those with SN invasion.

A retrospective analysis of a cohort of patients with BC and micrometastases (Mic) or isolated tumour cells (ITCs) in SN. Factors associated with ALND were identified, and patients with ALND were matched to patients without ALND. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were estimated in the overall population, in Mic and in ITC cohorts.

Among 2009 patients analysed, 1390 and 619 had Mic and ITC in SN, respectively. Factors significantly associated with ALND were SN status, histological type, age, number of SN harvested and absence of adjuvant chemotherapy. After a median follow-up of 60.4 months, ALND omission was independently associated with reduced OS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.41, 90 confidence interval [CI] 1.36-4.27, p = 0.0102), but not with increased RFS (HR 1.21, 90 CI 0.74-2.0, p = 0.52) in the overall population. In matched patients, the increased risk of death in case of ALND omission was found only in the Mic cohort (HR 2.88, 90 CI 1.46-5.69), not in the ITC cohort. The risk of recurrence was also significantly increased in the subgroup of matched Mic patients (HR 1.56, 90 CI 0.90-2.73).

A separate analysis of Mic and ITC groups, matched for the determinants of ALND, suggested that patients with Mic had increased recurrence rates and shorter OS when ALND was not performed. Our results are consistent with those of previous studies for patients with ITC but not for those with Mic. Randomised controlled clinical trials are still warranted to show with a high level of evidence if ALND can be safely omitted in patients with micrometastatic disease in SN.

CONS: Therapeutic de-escalation in breast cancer surgery is not recommanded for all patients. Concerning the axillary management, there are still some contraindications for practicing sentinel node, and avoiding axillary dissection is not safe for more than 3 positive sentinel nodes and in the absence of adjuvant treatment. Mastectomy can also be preferred by patients rather than conservative surgery, especially in case of genetic mutation, or for oncological reasons. Larger glandular resections, known as oncoplasties, should also be chosen in case of associated ductal carcinoma in situ and risky subgroups of local recurrence after neoadjuvant therapy. Finally, all patients will not benefit from ambulatory surgery.