Contraindications of sentinel lymph node biopsy: Áre there any really?

BACKGROUND: One of the most exciting and talked about new surgical techniques in breast cancer surgery is the sentinel lymph node biopsy. It is an alternative procedure to standard axillary lymph node dissection, which makes possible less invasive surgery and side effects for patients with early breast cancer that wouldn't benefit further from axillary lymph node clearance. Sentinel lymph node biopsy helps to accurately evaluate the status of the axilla and the extent of disease, but also determines appropriate adjuvant treatment and long-term follow-up. However, like all surgical procedures, the sentinel lymph node biopsy is not appropriate for each and every patient. METHODS: In this article we review the absolute and relative contraindications of the procedure in respect to clinically positive axilla, neoadjuvant therapy, tumor size, multicentric and multifocal disease, in situ carcinoma, pregnancy, age, body-mass index, allergies to dye and/or radio colloid and prior breast and/or axillary surgery. RESULTS: Certain conditions involving host factors and tumor biologic characteristics may have a negative impact on the success rate and accuracy of the procedure. The overall fraction of patients unsuitable or with multiple risk factors that may compromise the success of the sentinel lymph node biopsy, is very small. Nevertheless, these patients need to be successfully identified, appropriately advised and cautioned, and so do the surgeons that perform the procedure. CONCLUSION: When performed by an experienced multi-disciplinary team, the SLNB is a highly effective and accurate alternative to standard level I and II axillary clearance in the vast majority of patients with early breast cancer

Translational Block in Stroke: A Constructive and “Out-of-the-Box” Reappraisal

Why can we still not translate preclinical research to clinical treatments for acute strokes? Despite > 1000 successful preclinical studies, drugs, and concepts for acute stroke, only two have reached clinical translation. This is the translational block. Yet, we continue to routinely model strokes using almost the same concepts we have used for over 30 years. Methodological improvements and criteria from the last decade have shed some light but have not solved the problem. In this conceptual analysis, we review the current status and reappraise it by thinking “out-of-the-box” and over the edges. As such, we query why other scientific fields have also faced the same translational failures, to find common denominators. In parallel, we query how migraine, multiple sclerosis, and hypothermia in hypoxic encephalopathy have achieved significant translation successes. Should we view ischemic stroke as a “chronic, relapsing, vascular” disease, then secondary prevention strategies are also a successful translation. Finally, based on the lessons learned, we propose how stroke should be modeled, and how preclinical and clinical scientists, editors, grant reviewers, and industry should reconsider their routine way of conducting research. Translational success for stroke treatments may eventually require a bold change with solutions that are outside of the box. © Copyright © 2021 Lourbopoulos, Mourouzis, Xinaris, Zerva, Filippakis, Pavlopoulos and Pantos