Explore the vast range of titles available.

Sentinel-lymph-node (SLN) surgery was designed to minimise the side-effects of lymph-node surgery but still offer outcomes equivalent to axillary-lymph-node dissection (ALND). The aims of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) trial B-32 were to establish whether SLN resection in patients with breast cancer achieves the same survival and regional control as ALND, but with fewer side-effects. NSABP B-32 was a randomised controlled phase 3 trial done at 80 centres in Canada and the USA between May 1, 1999, and Feb 29, 2004. Women with invasive breast cancer were randomly assigned to either SLN resection plus ALND (group 1) or to SLN resection alone with ALND only if the SLNs were positive (group 2). Random assignment was done at the NSABP Biostatistical Center (Pittsburgh, PA, USA) with a biased coin minimisation approach in an allocation ratio of 1:1. Stratification variables were age at entry (≤49 years, ≥50 years), clinical tumour size (≤2·0 cm, 2·1–4·0 cm, ≥4·1 cm), and surgical plan (lumpectomy, mastectomy). SLN resection was done with a blue dye and radioactive tracer. Outcome analyses were done in patients who were assessed as having pathologically negative sentinel nodes and for whom follow-up data were available. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. All deaths, irrespective of cause, were included. The mean time on study for the SLN-negative patients with follow-up information was 95·6 months (range 70·1–126·7). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00003830. 5611 women were randomly assigned to the treatment groups, 3989 had pathologically negative SLN. 309 deaths were reported in the 3986 SLN-negative patients with follow-up information: 140 of 1975 patients in group 1 and 169 of 2011 in group 2. Log-rank comparison of overall survival in groups 1 and 2 yielded an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1·20 (95% CI 0·96–1·50; p=0·12). 8-year Kaplan-Meier estimates for overall survival were 91·8% (95% CI 90·4–93·3) in group 1 and 90·3% (88·8–91·8) in group 2. Treatment comparisons for disease-free survival yielded an unadjusted HR of 1·05 (95% CI 0·90–1·22; p=0·54). 8-year Kaplan-Meier estimates for disease-free survival were 82·4% (80·5–84·4) in group 1 and 81·5% (79·6–83·4) in group 2. There were eight regional-node recurrences as first events in group 1 and 14 in group 2 (p=0·22). Patients are continuing follow-up for longer-term assessment of survival and regional control. The most common adverse events were allergic reactions, mostly related to the administration of the blue dye. Overall survival, disease-free survival, and regional control were statistically equivalent between groups. When the SLN is negative, SLN surgery alone with no further ALND is an appropriate, safe, and effective therapy for breast cancer patients with clinically negative lymph nodes. US Public Health Service, National Cancer Institute, and Department of Health and Human Services.

We previously reported the 5-year results of the phase 3 IBCSG 23-01 trial comparing disease-free survival in patients with breast cancer with one or more micrometastatic (≤2 mm) sentinel nodes randomly assigned to either axillary dissection or no axillary dissection. The results showed no difference in disease-free survival between the groups and showed non-inferiority of no axillary dissection relative to axillary dissection. The current analysis presents the results of the study after a median follow-up of 9·7 years (IQR 7·8–12·7). In this multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial, participants were recruited from 27 hospitals and cancer centres in nine countries. Eligible women could be of any age with clinical, mammographic, ultrasonographic, or pathological diagnosis of breast cancer with largest lesion diameter of 5 cm or smaller, and one or more metastatic sentinel nodes, all of which were 2 mm or smaller and with no extracapsular extension. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) before surgery (mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery) to no axillary dissection or axillary dissection using permuted blocks generated by a web-based congruence algorithm, with stratification by centre and menopausal status. The protocol-specified primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (as randomly assigned). Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received their allocated treatment (as treated). We did a one-sided test for non-inferiority of no axillary dissection by comparing the observed hazard ratios (HRs) for disease-free survival with a margin of 1·25. This 10-year follow-up analysis was not prespecified in the trial's protocol and thus was not adjusted for multiple, sequential testing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00072293. Between April 1, 2001, and Feb 8, 2010, 6681 patients were screened and 934 randomly assigned to no axillary dissection (n=469) or axillary dissection (n=465). Three patients were ineligible and were excluded from the trial after randomisation. Disease-free survival at 10 years was 76·8% (95% CI 72·5–81·0) in the no axillary dissection group, compared with 74·9% (70·5–79·3) in the axillary dissection group (HR 0·85, 95% CI 0·65–1·11; log-rank p=0·24; p=0·0024 for non-inferiority). Long-term surgical complications included lymphoedema of any grade in 16 (4%) of 453 patients in the no axillary dissection group and 60 (13%) of 447 in the axillary dissection group, sensory neuropathy of any grade in 57 (13%) in the no axillary dissection group versus 85 (19%) in the axillary dissection group, and motor neuropathy of any grade (14 [3%] in the no axillary dissection group vs 40 [9%] in the axillary dissection group). One serious adverse event (postoperative infection and inflamed axilla requiring hospital admission) was attributed to axillary dissection; the event resolved without sequelae. The findings of the IBCSG 23-01 trial after a median follow-up of 9·7 years (IQR 7·8–12·7) corroborate those obtained at 5 years and are consistent with those of the 10-year follow-up analysis of the Z0011 trial. Together, these findings support the current practice of not doing an axillary dissection when the tumour burden in the sentinel nodes is minimal or moderate in patients with early breast cancer. International Breast Cancer Study Group.

Patients with sentinel-node metastasis at the time of breast-cancer surgery may undergo axillary dissection to remove more nodes, which can lead to side effects. In a trial, the additional surgery did not prolong survival.

Patients with melanoma and positive sentinel nodes were randomly assigned to completion lymph-node dissection or observation. Melanoma-specific survival did not differ significantly between the groups. Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy is a standard procedure in the care of appropriately selected patients with melanoma. The first Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial (MSLT-I) confirmed the value of early nodal evaluation and treatment. 1 – 3 This prospective, international, randomized trial showed that the pathologic status of the sentinel node or nodes was the most important prognostic factor and that patients who underwent sentinel-node biopsy had fewer recurrences of melanoma than patients who underwent wide excision and nodal observation. Among patients with intermediate-thickness melanomas (defined as 1.2 to 3.5 mm) and nodal metastases, early surgical treatment, guided by sentinel-node biopsy, was associated with increased . . .

BackgroundThe SINODAR-ONE trial is a prospective noninferiority multicenter randomized study aimed at assessing the role of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in patients undergoing either breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy for T1–2 breast cancer (BC) and presenting one or two macrometastatic sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs). The endpoints were to evaluate whether SLN biopsy (SLNB) only was associated with worsening of the prognosis compared with ALND in terms of overall survival (OS) and relapse.MethodsPatients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to either removal of ≥ 10 axillary level I/II non-SLNs followed by adjuvant therapy (standard arm) or no further axillary treatment (experimental arm).ResultsThe trial started in April 2015 and ceased in April 2020, involving 889 patients. Median follow-up was 34.0 months. There were eight deaths (ALND, 4; SNLB only, 4), with 5-year cumulative mortality of 5.8% and 2.1% in the standard and experimental arm, respectively (p = 0.984). There were 26 recurrences (ALND 11; SNLB only, 15), with 5-year cumulative incidence of recurrence of 6.9% and 3.3% in the standard and experimental arm, respectively (p = 0.444). Only one axillary lymph node recurrence was observed in each arm. The 5-year OS rates were 98.9% and 98.8%, in the ALND and SNLB-only arm, respectively (p = 0.936).ConclusionsThe 3-year survival and relapse rates of T1–2 BC patients with one or two macrometastatic SLNs treated with SLNB only, and adjuvant therapy, were not inferior to those of patients treated with ALND. These results do not support the use of routine ALND.

In patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer, extended lymphadenectomy did not improve disease-free or overall survival as compared with the standard procedure and was associated with higher morbidity and mortality.

Sentinel-lymph-node mapping has been advocated as an alternative staging technique for endometrial cancer. The aim of this study was to measure the sensitivity and negative predictive value of sentinel-lymph-node mapping compared with the gold standard of complete lymphadenectomy in detecting metastatic disease for endometrial cancer. In the FIRES multicentre, prospective, cohort study patients with clinical stage 1 endometrial cancer of all histologies and grades undergoing robotic staging were eligible for study inclusion. Patients received a standardised cervical injection of indocyanine green and sentinel-lymph-node mapping followed by pelvic lymphadenectomy with or without para-aortic lymphadenectomy. 18 surgeons from ten centres (tertiary academic and community non-academic) in the USA participated in the trial. Negative sentinel lymph nodes (by haematoxylin and eosin staining on sections) were ultra-staged with immunohistochemistry for cytokeratin. The primary endpoint, sensitivity of the sentinel-lymph-node-based detection of metastatic disease, was defined as the proportion of patients with node-positive disease with successful sentinel-lymph-node mapping who had metastatic disease correctly identified in the sentinel lymph node. Patients who had mapping of at least one sentinel lymph node were included in the primary analysis (per protocol). All patients who received study intervention (injection of dye), regardless of mapping result, were included as part of the assessment of mapping and in the safety analysis in an intention-to-treat manner. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01673022 and is completed and closed. Between Aug 1, 2012, and Oct 20, 2015, 385 patients were enrolled. Sentinel-lymph-node mapping with complete pelvic lymphadenectomy was done in 340 patients and para-aortic lymphadenectomy was done in 196 (58%) of these patients. 293 (86%) patients had successful mapping of at least one sentinel lymph node. 41 (12%) patients had positive nodes, 36 of whom had at least one mapped sentinel lymph node. Nodal metastases were identified in the sentinel lymph nodes of 35 (97%) of these 36 patients, yielding a sensitivity to detect node-positive disease of 97·2% (95% CI 85·0–100), and a negative predictive value of 99·6% (97·9–100). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events or serious adverse events were postoperative neurological disorders (4 patients) and postoperative respiratory distress or failure (4 patients). 22 patients had serious adverse events, with one related to the study intervention: a ureteral injury incurred during sentinel-lymph-node dissection. Sentinel lymph nodes identified with indocyanine green have a high degree of diagnostic accuracy in detecting endometrial cancer metastases and can safely replace lymphadenectomy in the staging of endometrial cancer. Sentinel lymph node biopsy will not identify metastases in 3% of patients with node-positive disease, but has the potential to expose fewer patients to the morbidity of a complete lymphadenectomy. Indiana University Health, Indiana University Health Simon Cancer Center, and the Indiana University Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Complete lymph node dissection is recommended in patients with positive sentinel lymph node biopsy results. To date, the effect of complete lymph node dissection on prognosis is controversial. In the DeCOG-SLT trial, we assessed whether complete lymph node dissection resulted in increased survival compared with observation. In this multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients with cutaneous melanoma of the torso, arms, or legs from 41 German skin cancer centres. Patients with positive sentinel lymph node biopsy results were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo complete lymph node dissection or observation with permuted blocks of variable size and stratified by primary tumour thickness, ulceration of primary tumour, and intended adjuvant interferon therapy. Treatment assignment was not masked. The primary endpoint was distant metastasis-free survival and analysed by intention to treat. All patients in the intention-to-treat population of the complete lymph node dissection group were included in the safety analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02434107. Follow-up is ongoing, but the trial no longer recruiting patients. Between Jan 1, 2006, and Dec 1, 2014, 5547 patients were screened with sentinel lymph node biopsy and 1269 (23%) patients were positive for micrometastasis. Of these, 483 (39%) agreed to randomisation into the clinical trial; due to difficulties enrolling and a low event rate the trial closed early on Dec 1, 2014. 241 patients were randomly assigned to the observation group and 242 to the complete lymph node dissection group. Ten patients did not meet the inclusion criteria, so 233 patients were analysed in the observation group and 240 patients were analysed in the complete lymph node dissection group, as the intention-to-treat population. 311 (66%) patients (158 in the observation group and 153 in the dissection group) had sentinel lymph node metastases of 1 mm or less. Median follow-up was 35 months (IQR 20–54). Distant metastasis-free survival at 3 years was 77·0% (90% CI 71·9–82·1; 55 events) in the observation group and 74·9% (69·5–80·3; 54 events) in the complete lymph node dissection group. In the complete lymph node dissection group, grade 3 and 4 events occurred in 15 patients (6%) and 19 patients (8%) patients, respectively. Adverse events included lymph oedema (grade 3 in seven patients, grade 4 in 13 patients), lymph fistula (grade 3 in one patient, grade 4 in two patients), seroma (grade 3 in three patients, no grade 4), infection (grade 3 in three patients, no grade 4), and delayed wound healing (grade 3 in one patient, grade 4 in four patients); no serious adverse events were reported. Although we did not achieve the required number of events, leading to the trial being underpowered, our results showed no difference in survival in patients treated with complete lymph node dissection compared with observation only. Consequently, complete lymph node dissection should not be recommended in patients with melanoma with lymph node micrometastases of at least a diameter of 1 mm or smaller. German Cancer Aid.

Background For patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma or cancer of the gastroesophageal junction, radical esophagectomy with 2-field lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of the multimodality treatment with curative intent. Both conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) were shown to be superior compared to open transthoracic esophagectomy considering postoperative complications. However, no randomized comparison exists between MIE and RAMIE in the Western World for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma. Methods This is an investigator-initiated and investigator-driven multicenter randomized controlled parallel-group superiority trial. All adult patients (age ≥ 18 and ≤ 90 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0–3, M0) esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction and with European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 will be assessed for eligibility and included after obtaining informed consent. Patients ( n  = 218) with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction are randomized to either RAMIE ( n  = 109) or MIE ( n  = 109). The primary outcome of this study is the total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes specified per lymph node station. Conclusion This is the first randomized controlled trial designed to compare RAMIE to MIE as surgical treatment for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction in the Western World. The hypothesis of the proposed study is that RAMIE will result in a higher abdominal and mediastinal lymph node yield specified per station compared to conventional MIE. Short-term results and the primary endpoint (total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes per lymph node station) will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient within this trial. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04306458 . Registered 13th March 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04306458; Date of first enrolment 18.01.2021; Target sample size 218; Recruitment status: Recruiting; Protocol version 2; Issue date 10.03.2020; Rev. 02.02.2021; Authors ET, PCvdS, PPG.

The role of locoregional treatment in women with metastatic breast cancer at first presentation is unclear. Preclinical evidence suggests that such treatment might help the growth of metastatic disease, whereas many retrospective analyses in clinical cohorts have suggested a favourable effect of locoregional treatment in these patients. We aimed to compare the effect of locoregional treatment with no treatment on outcome in women with metastatic breast cancer at initial presentation. In this open-label, randomised controlled trial, we recruited previously untreated patients (≤65 years of age with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 1 year) presenting with de-novo metastatic breast cancer from Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive locoregional treatment directed at their primary breast tumour and axillary lymph nodes, or no locoregional treatment, by a computer-generated block randomisation sequence (block size of four). Randomisation was stratified by site of distant metastases, number of metastatic lesions, and hormone receptor status. Patients with resectable primary tumour in the breast that could be treated with endocrine therapy were randomly assigned upfront, whereas those with an unresectable primary tumour were planned for chemotherapy before randomisation. Of the patients who had chemotherapy before randomisation, we randomly assigned patients who had an objective tumour response after six to eight cycles of chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00193778. Between Feb 7, 2005, and Jan 18, 2013, of the 716 women presenting with de-novo metastatic breast cancer, we randomly assigned 350 patients: 173 to locoregional treatment and 177 to no locoregional treatment. At data cut-off of Nov 1, 2013, median follow-up was 23 months (IQR 12·2–38·7) with 235 deaths (locoregional treatment n=118, no locoregional treatment n=117). Median overall survival was 19·2 months (95% CI 15·98–22·46) in the locoregional treatment group and 20·5 months (16·96–23·98) in the no-locoregional treatment group (HR 1·04, 95% CI 0·81–1·34; p=0·79), and the corresponding 2-year overall survival was 41·9% (95% CI 33·9–49·7) in the locoregional treatment group and 43·0% (35·2–50·8) in the no locoregional treatment group. The only adverse event noted was wound infection related to surgery in one patient in the locoregional treatment group. There is no evidence to suggest that locoregional treatment of the primary tumour affects overall survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer at initial presentation who have responded to front-line chemotherapy, and this procedure should not be part of routine practice. Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India.