Development of sentinel node localization and ROLL in breast cancer in Europe

The concept of a precise region in which to find the lymph nodes that drain the lymph directly from the primary tumor site can be traced back to a century ago to the observations of Jamieson and Dobson who described how cancer cells spread from cancer of the stomach in a single lymph node, which they called the â\u80\u9cprimary glandâ\u80\u9d. However, Cabanas was the first in 1977 to realize the importance of this concept in clinical studies following lymphography performed in patients with penile cancer. Thanks to Mortonâ\u80\u99s studies on melanoma in 1992, we began to understand the potential impact of the sentinel lymph node (SN) on the surgical treatment of this type of cancer. The use of a vital dye (blue dye) administered subdermally in the region surrounding the melanoma lesion led to the identification of the sentinel node, and the vital dye technique was subsequently applied to other types of solid tumors, e.g. breast, vulva. However, difficulties in using this technique in anatomical regions with deep lymphatic vessels, e.g. axilla, led to the development of lymphoscintigraphy, started by Alex and Krag in 1993 on melanoma and breast cancer and optimized by our group at European Institute of Oncology (IEO) in Milan in 1996. Today, lymphoscintigraphy is still considered as the most reliable method for the detection of the SN. In 1996, a new method for the localization of non-palpable breast lesion called radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) was also developed at IEO. Retrospective and prospective studies have since shown that the ROLL procedure permits the easy and accurate surgical removal of non-palpable breast lesions, overcoming the limitations of previous techniques such as the wire-guided localization. The purpose of this paper is to describe the evolution of SN biopsy and radioguided surgery in the management of breast cancer. We also include a review of the literature on the clinical scenarios in which SN biopsy in breast cancer is currently used, with particular reference to controversies and future prospects

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

Present and future evolution of advanced breast cancer therapy

Although the introduction of novel therapies and drug combinations has improved the prognosis of metastatic breast cancer, the disease remains incurable. Increased knowledge of the biology and the molecular alterations in breast cancer has facilitated the design of targeted therapies. These agents include receptor and nonreceptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (epidermal growth factor receptor family), intracellular signaling pathways (phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase, AKT, mammalian target of rapamycin) angiogenesis inhibitors and agents that interfere with DNA repair (poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors). In the present review, we present the most promising studies of these new targeted therapies and novel combinations of targeted therapies with cytotoxic agents

Criteria for the use of omics-based predictors in clinical trials: Explanation and elaboration

High-throughput 'omics' technologies that generate molecular profiles for biospecimens have been extensively used in preclinical studies to reveal molecular subtypes and elucidate the biological mechanisms of disease, and in retrospective studies on clinical specimens to develop mathematical models to predict clinical endpoints. Nevertheless, the translation of these technologies into clinical tests that are useful for guiding management decisions for patients has been relatively slow. It can be difficult to determine when the body of evidence for an omics-based test is sufficiently comprehensive and reliable to support claims that it is ready for clinical use, or even that it is ready for definitive evaluation in a clinical trial in which it may be used to direct patient therapy. Reasons for this difficulty include the exploratory and retrospective nature of many of these studies, the complexity of these assays and their application to clinical specimens, and the many potential pitfalls inherent in the development of mathematical predictor models from the very high-dimensional data generated by these omics technologies. Here we present a checklist of criteria to consider when evaluating the body of evidence supporting the clinical use of a predictor to guide patient therapy. Included are issues pertaining to specimen and assay requirements, the soundness of the process for developing predictor models, expectations regarding clinical study design and conduct, and attention to regulatory, ethical, and legal issues. The proposed checklist should serve as a useful guide to investigators preparing proposals for studies involving the use of omics-based tests. The US National Cancer Institute plans to refer to these guidelines for review of proposals for studies involving omics tests, and it is hoped that other sponsors will adopt the checklist as well. © 2013 McShane et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd