Current trends in diagnostic and therapeutic management of the axilla in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy: results of the German-wide NOGGO MONITOR 24 survey.
Breast cancer
Breast ultrasound
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Survey
Targeted axillary dissection
Journal
Archives of gynecology and obstetrics
ISSN: 1432-0711
Titre abrégé: Arch Gynecol Obstet
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8710213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2023
05 2023
Historique:
received:
24
08
2022
accepted:
21
09
2022
medline:
19
4
2023
pubmed:
11
10
2022
entrez:
10
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In the last 2 decades, the optimal management of the axilla in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been one of the most frequently discussed topics. Little is known about the attitudes of surgeons/radiologists towards new developments such as targeted axillary dissection. Therefore, the NOGGO conducted a survey to evaluate the current approach to axillary management. A standardized digital questionnaire was sent out to > 200 departments in Germany between 7/2021 and 5/2022. The survey was supported by EUBREAST. In total, 116 physicians completed the survey. In cN0 patients scheduled to receive NACT, 89% of respondents recommended sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) after NACT. In case of ypN1mi(sn), 44% advised no further therapy, while 31% proposed ALND and 25% axillary irradiation. 64% of respondents recommended a minimally invasive axillary biopsy to cN + patients. TAD was used at the departments of 82% of respondents and was offered to all cN + patients converting to ycN0 by 57% and only to selected patients, usually based on the number of suspicious nodes at time of presentation, by 43%. The most common marking technique was a clip/coil. 67% estimated that the detection rate of their marker was very good or good. This survey shows a heterogenous approach towards axillary management in the neoadjuvant setting in Germany. Most respondents follow current guidelines. Since only two-thirds of respondents experienced the detection rate of the marker used at their department as (very) good, future studies should focus on the comparative evaluation of different marking techniques.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36214890
doi: 10.1007/s00404-022-06804-w
pii: 10.1007/s00404-022-06804-w
pmc: PMC10110637
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1547-1556Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
JAMA. 2017 Sep 12;318(10):918-926
pubmed: 28898379
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2022 Sep 13;82(9):932-940
pubmed: 36110892
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020 Feb;301(2):341-353
pubmed: 31897672
Breast Care (Basel). 2022 Aug;17(4):403-420
pubmed: 36156915
Ann Surg. 2022 Nov 1;276(5):e553-e562
pubmed: 33156057
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021 Aug;47(8):1907-1912
pubmed: 33962833
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Mar 29;13(7):
pubmed: 33805367
J Clin Oncol. 2021 Sep 20;39(27):3056-3082
pubmed: 34279999
Breast Care (Basel). 2021 Oct;16(5):532-538
pubmed: 34720813
Ann Surg Oncol. 2019 Dec;26(13):4381-4389
pubmed: 31605339
Breast Care (Basel). 2021 Jun;16(3):214-227
pubmed: 34248462
Ann Surg. 2015 Feb;261(2):378-82
pubmed: 24743607
Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Jun;25(6):1488-1494
pubmed: 29572705