Search

Contains fulltext : 48740.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) Women at risk of breast and ovarian cancer due to a genetic predisposition may opt for preventive surgery or surveillance. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of surveillance in families with a BRCA mutation. Sixty-eight BRCA-families underwent surveillance using annual mammography, transvaginal ultrasound, and estimation of CA125. Two hundred and two women had at least one breast examination, and 138 at least one examination of the ovaries. After a mean follow-up of 33 months, breast cancer was detected in 21 women, four with lymph node metastases. After a mean follow-up of 37 months, six advanced ovarian cancers were detected. The percentage of metastatic breast cancers in the current study appeared to be acceptable. However, because these women have a high-risk of developing breast cancer, they still have a substantial risk of developing metastatic disease under surveillance. Surveillance for ovarian cancer was not effective.

The aim of this study was to develop a standardised surgical report for breast-conserving procedures, supporting the systematic documentation of the different aspects of the surgery. The surgical procedure for tumourectomy and axillary clearance was translated into a series of steps that could be quantitatively documented. This description was submitted twice to a group of surgeons from different departments to ensure that all steps that are considered to have relevance for outcome were included and that no superfluous data were collected. After two corrective phases, a first test format was developed. Between February 1993 and May 1994, seven surgical departments, participating in EORTC trials, completed this questionnaire for a number of their patients. The data collected related to general information on the department, the tumour excision itself, the axillary dissection and, in a later phase, on pathology. 269 questionnaires (264 tumour excisions, 259 axillary dissections and 189 pathology reports) were collected and analysed. Even though the participating departments were involved in a single trial on breast-conserving surgery and had previously developed regular contacts about the practical aspects of treatment, many differences were detected. In general, variations were found in the waiting time between treatment prescription and execution, experience of the surgeon, duration of the procedure, and the use of prophylactic antibiotics. Also, in the practical execution of the procedure, major variations in the type of incision, width of tumour excision, closure of the breast tissue and skin, the use of frozen sections and the extent of the axillary dissection were found. The most relevant differences and their possible consequences are discussed. It has been proven possible and feasible to document quantitatively a surgical procedure. The fact that within a group of surgeons participating in the same clinical trials, many differences in the surgical techniques are observed, stresses the need to reach a consensus on a stricter set of guidelines for breast-conserving procedures and their documentation, especially when conducting clinical trials.

The timing of the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNB) is controversial in clinically node negative patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). We studied variation in the timing of axillary staging in breast cancer patients who received NAC and the subsequent axillary treatment in The Netherlands. Patients diagnosed with clinically node negative primary breast cancer between 1st January 2010 and 30th June 2013 who received NAC and SNB were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Data on patient and tumour characteristics, axillary staging and treatment were analysed. Two groups were defined: (1) patients with SNB before NAC (N = 980) and (2) patients with SNB after NAC (N = 203). Eighty-three percent of patients underwent SNB before NAC, with large regional variation (35-99%). The SN identification rate differed for SNBs conducted before and after NAC (98% versus 95%; p = 0.032). A lower proportion of patients had a negative SNB when assessed before NAC compared to after (54% versus 67%; p = 0.001). The proportion of patients receiving any axillary treatment was higher for those with SNB before NAC than after (45% versus 33%; p = 0.006). In conclusion, variation exists in the timing of SNB in clinical practice in The Netherlands for clinically node negative breast cancer patients receiving NAC. The post-NAC SN procedure is, despite some lower SN identification rate, associated with a significantly less frequent axillary treatment and thus with less expected morbidity. The effect on recurrence rate is not yet clear. Patients in this registry will be followed prospectively for long-term outcome. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved