Screening for distant metastases in patients with ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence: the impact of different imaging modalities on distant recurrence-free interval

Purpose In patients with ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), the detection of distant disease determines whether the intention of the treatment is curative or palliative. Therefore, adequate preoperative staging is imperative for optimal treatment planning. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of conventional imaging techniques, including chest X-ray and/or CT thorax-(abdomen), liver ultrasonography(US), and skeletal scintigraphy, on the distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI) in patients with IBTR, and to compare conventional imaging with 18F-FDG PET-CT or no imaging at all. Methods This study was exclusively based on the information available at time of diagnoses of IBTR. To adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between the three imaging groups, a propensity score (PS) weighted method was used. Results Of the 495 patients included in the study, 229 (46.3%) were staged with conventional imaging, 89 patients (19.8%) were staged with 18F-FDG PET-CT, and in 168 of the patients (33.9%) no imaging was used (N=168). After a follow-up of approximately 5 years, 14.5% of all patients developed a distant recurrence as frst event after IBTR. After adjusting for the PS weights, the Cox regression analyses showed that the diferent staging methods had no signifcant impact on the DRFI. Conclusions This study showed a wide variation in the use of imaging modalities for staging IBTR patients in the Netherlands. After using PS weighting, no statistically signifcant impact of the diferent imaging modalities on DRFI was shown. Based on these results, it is not possible to recommend staging for distant metastases using 18F-FDG PET-CT over conventional imaging technique

Risk of Regional Recurrence After Negative Repeat Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Patients with Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrence

Contains fulltext : 194597.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Repeat sentinel lymph node biopsy (rSLNB) has increasingly been used in patients with ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). The safety in terms of regional disease control after this procedure remains unclear. This study evaluates occurrence of regional recurrence as first event in patients with IBTR and negative rSLNB, treated without additional lymph node dissection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from the Sentinel Node and Recurrent Breast Cancer (SNARB) study. In 201 patients, tumor-negative rSLNB was obtained without performing additional lymph node dissections. RESULTS: With median follow-up of 4.7 (range 0.9-12.7) years, regional recurrence occurred after median time of 3.0 (range 0.4-6.7) years in 4.5% (N = 9) of patients as first event after IBTR and rSLNB. In four of these nine patients, the site of recurrence was in concordance with the anatomical location of rSLNB. Two of the nine recurrences were reported in the ipsilateral axilla, resulting in an ipsilateral axillary regional recurrence rate of 1.0%. In the other seven patients, regional recurrence occurred in aberrant basins. Univariable analysis showed that triple-negative IBTR and lower amount of radioactive-labeled tracer ((99m)technetium) used during rSLNB were associated with developing regional recurrence as first event after negative rSLNB (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of developing regional recurrence after negative rSLNB is low. The low relapse rate supports the safety of rSLNB as primary nodal staging tool in IBTR. The time has come for clinical guidelines to adopt rSLNB as axillary staging tool in patients with IBTR

Low Risk of Development of a Regional Recurrence After an Unsuccessful Repeat Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Patients with Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrence

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: Unlike sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in the primary setting, the repeat SLNB (rSLNB) in patients with ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) is challenging, because it is difficult to visualize and/or harvest a sentinel lymph node in every patient. Regional treatments options and safety in terms of regional disease control after such an unsuccessful rSLNB remain unclear. This study assesses factors associated with the performance of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) after unsuccessful rSLNB and evaluates the occurrence of regional recurrences. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Sentinel Node and Recurrent Breast Cancer (SNARB) study. In 239 patients, the rSLNB was unsuccessful, of whom 60 patients underwent ipsilateral ALND. RESULTS: A shorter time interval between primary treatment and IBTR, and a primary negative SLNB were significantly associated with a higher probability to be treated with ALND after unsuccessful rSLNB (P 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates that the risk of regional recurrence in patients with an IBTR and an unsuccessful rSLNB is negligible, irrespective of the use of ALND. This suggests that there is no need for additional treatment of the axilla after an unsuccessful rSLNB

Prognostic impact of repeat sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence

BACKGROUND: Ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR) has an unfavourable prognosis, with a significant subsequent risk of distant recurrence. Repeat sentinel lymph node biopsy (rSLNB) has recently been demonstrated to be technically feasible and useful in tailoring adjuvant treatment plans in patients with IBTR. The prognostic impact of rSLNB in patients with IBTR remains unclear. This study analysed the risk of distant recurrence after IBTR, and evaluated the prognostic impact of rSLNB and other patient and tumour characteristics on distant recurrence-free survival. METHODS: Data were obtained from the SNARB (Sentinel Node and Recurrent Breast Cancer) study. Cox proportional hazards analyses were performed to assess the prognostic effect of tumour, patient and treatment factors on distant recurrence-free survival. RESULTS: Of the 515 included patients, 230 (44.7 per cent) had a tumour-negative rSLNB and 46 (8.9 per cent) a tumour-positive rSLNB. In 239 patients (46.4 per cent) the rSLNB procedure was unsuccessful. After a median follow-up of 5.1 years, 115 patients (22.3 per cent) had developed a recurrence. The overall 5-year distant recurrence-free survival rate was 84.2 (95 per cent c.i. 80.7 to 87.7) per cent. An interval of less than 2 years between primary breast cancer treatment and ipsilateral recurrence (P = 0.018), triple-negative IBTR (P = 0.045) and absence of adjuvant chemotherapy after IBTR (P = 0.010) were independently associated with poor distant recurrence-free survival. The association between the outcome of rSLNB and distant recurrence-free survival was not statistically significant (P = 0.682). CONCLUSION: The outcome of rSLNB is not an important prognostic factor for distant recurrence, and its value as a staging tool in patients with IBTR seems disputable

Screening for distant metastases in patients with ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence: the impact of different imaging modalities on distant recurrence-free interval

Contains fulltext : 216152.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)PURPOSE: In patients with ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), the detection of distant disease determines whether the intention of the treatment is curative or palliative. Therefore, adequate preoperative staging is imperative for optimal treatment planning. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of conventional imaging techniques, including chest X-ray and/or CT thorax-(abdomen), liver ultrasonography(US), and skeletal scintigraphy, on the distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI) in patients with IBTR, and to compare conventional imaging with (18)F-FDG PET-CT or no imaging at all. METHODS: This study was exclusively based on the information available at time of diagnoses of IBTR. To adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between the three imaging groups, a propensity score (PS) weighted method was used. RESULTS: Of the 495 patients included in the study, 229 (46.3%) were staged with conventional imaging, 89 patients (19.8%) were staged with (18)F-FDG PET-CT, and in 168 of the patients (33.9%) no imaging was used (N = 168). After a follow-up of approximately 5 years, 14.5% of all patients developed a distant recurrence as first event after IBTR. After adjusting for the PS weights, the Cox regression analyses showed that the different staging methods had no significant impact on the DRFI. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed a wide variation in the use of imaging modalities for staging IBTR patients in the Netherlands. After using PS weighting, no statistically significant impact of the different imaging modalities on DRFI was shown. Based on these results, it is not possible to recommend staging for distant metastases using (18)F-FDG PET-CT over conventional imaging techniques