Percutaneous sentinel node removal using a vacuum-assisted needle biopsy in women with breast cancer:a feasibility and acceptability study

AIMS: To assess the feasibility and acceptability of large-gauge percutaneous removal of the axillary sentinel lymph node (SLN) using dual gamma probe and ultrasound guidance.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Technetium nanocolloid was administered the day before surgery. On the day of surgery, potential SLNs were identified with gamma probe and ultrasound scanning. A 7 G vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) device was inserted percutaneously deep to the target node and the node(s) removed. The gamma probe was used to confirm removal of radiolabelled tissue. At surgery, any residual radiolabelled or blue nodes were removed. Morbidity was assessed via (1) a pain questionnaire immediately after the percutaneous procedure, (2) relevant items from the FACT B+4 questionnaire 7-10 days after surgery, and (3) case note review 1 month after surgery.RESULTS: Twenty-two patients consented and 20 patients underwent the procedure. Radiolabelled nodal tissue was obtained in 18/20 (90%). The mean procedure time was 11 minutes. Four of 18 patients had metastatic disease identified in the VAB excision tissue with 100% sensitivity for axillary metastasis. At axillary surgery, additional intact SLN or fragments were found in 14 patients. No additional metastatic disease was found at surgery. One patient suffered a pneumothorax during instillation of local anaesthetic. The median pain score was 10/100 by visual analogue scale. Immediate post-procedure haematoma was common (14 of 20) and prolonged manual compression frequent.CONCLUSION: VAB removal of sentinel nodes using dual scanning is feasible. Although preliminary sensitivity and specificity levels are encouraging, complications may discourage widespread implementation.</p

'PartBreCon' study. A UK multicentre retrospective cohort study to assess outcomes following PARTial BREast reCONstruction with chest wall perforator flaps

Background: Partial breast reconstruction with a pedicled chest wall perforator flap (CWPF) enables breast conservation in a higher tumour: breast volume ratio scenario. Since there is limited evidence, this retrospective cohort study aimed to ascertain immediate (30-days) and medium-term (follow-up duration) surgical outcomes.Methods: STROBE-compliant protocol ascertained CWPF outcomes between March 2011-March 2021. UK centres known to perform CWPF were invited to participate if they performed at least 10 cases. Data were retrospectively collected, including patient demographics, tumour and treatment characteristics, and surgical and oncological outcomes. Statistical analysis (R™) included multivariable logistic regression and sensitivity analysis.Results: Across 15 centres, 507 patients with median age (54 years, IQR; 48-62), body mass index (25.4 kg/m2, IQR; 22.5-29), tumour size (26 mm, IQR; 18-35), and specimen weight (62 g, IQR; 40-92) had following flap types: LiCAP (54.1%, n = 273), MiCAP/AiCAP (19.6%, n = 99), LiCAP + LTAP (19.8%, n = 100) and TDAP (2.2%, n = 11). 30-days complication rates were in 12%: haematoma (4.3%, n = 22), wound infection (4.3%, n = 22), delayed wound healing (2.8%, n = 14) and flap loss (0.6%, n = 3; 1 full) leading to readmissions (2.6%, n = 13) and re-operations (2.6%, n = 13). Positive margins (n = 88, 17.7%) led to 15.9% (n = 79) re-excisions, including 7.5% (n = 37) at the planned 2nd of 2-stage surgery and 1.8% (n = 9) mastectomy. At median 23 months (IQR; 11-39) follow-up, there were 1.2% (n = 6) symmetrisations; recurrences: local (1%), regional/nodal (0.6%) and distant (3.2%).Conclusions: This large multicentre cohort study demonstrates acceptable complication and margin re-excision rates. CWPF extends the range of breast conservation techniques. Further studies are required for long-term oncological outcomes.</p

Measuring performance in clinical breast examination

Background: Clinical breast examination (CBE) remains an essential part of triple assessment of breast lumps, but to date there are no performance measures for clinicians using this technique. The aim of this retrospective audit was to compare the performance and accuracy of CBE to identify key indicators that could be used to monitor performance prospectively. Methods: Clinical examination findings (E1, normal, to E5, malignant) for 16,585 patients who had CBE as part of triple assessment were obtained from electronic medical records. The performance of CBE, by age group, mammographic density and clinician, was assessed by calculating the sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results: There was marked variation in sensitivity between clinicians (range 44.6-65.9 per cent). There was a strong downward trend in the percentage classified as E5 as sensitivity for breast cancer detection decreased, and a corresponding strong downward trend in the proportion of E4 and E5 cancers classified as E5. Both of these measures could be used as indicators to monitor CBE performance. Conclusion: The performance measures outlined here could help to identify clinicians who have a lower sensitivity for CBE and who may therefore require feedback and further training