Prognostic Implications of Lateral Lymph Nodes in Rectal Cancer:A Population-Based Cross-sectional Study with Standardized Radiological Evaluation after Dedicated Training

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing discussion regarding the prognostic implications of the presence, short-axis diameter, and location of lateral lymph nodes. OBJECTIVE: To analyze lateral lymph node characteristics, the role of downsizing on restaging MRI, and associated local recurrence rates for patients with cT3-4 rectal cancer after MRI re-review and training. DESIGN: Retrospective population-based cross-sectional study. SETTINGS: This collaborative project was led by local investigators from surgery and radiology departments in 60 Dutch hospitals. PATIENTS: A total of 3057 patients underwent rectal cancer surgery in 2016: 1109 had a cT3-4 tumor located ≤8 cm from the anorectal junction, of whom 891 received neoadjuvant therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Local recurrence and (ipsi) lateral local recurrence rates. RESULTS: Re-review identified 314 patients (35%) with visible lateral lymph nodes. Of these, 30 patients had either only long-stretched obturator (n = 13) or external iliac (n = 17) nodes, and both did not lead to any lateral local recurrences. The presence of internal iliac/obturator lateral lymph nodes (n = 284) resulted in 4-year local recurrence and lateral local recurrence rates of 16.4% and 8.8%, respectively. Enlarged (≥7 mm) lateral lymph nodes (n = 122) resulted in higher 4-year local recurrence (20.8%, 13.1%, 0%; p &lt;.001) and lateral local recurrence (14.7%, 4.4%, 0%; p &lt; 0.001) rates compared to smaller and no lateral lymph nodes, respectively. Visible lateral lymph nodes (HR 1.8 [1.1-2.8]) and enlarged lateral lymph nodes (HR 1.9 [1.1-3.5]) were independently associated with local recurrence in multivariable analysis. Enlarged lateral lymph nodes with malignant features had higher 4-year lateral local recurrence rates of 17.0%. Downsizing had no impact on lateral local recurrence rates. Enlarged lateral lymph nodes were found to be associated with higher univariate 4-year distant metastasis rates (36.4% vs 24.4%; p = 0.021), but this was not significant in multivariable analyses (HR 1.3 [0.9-1.]) and did not worsen overall survival. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the retrospective design and total number of patients with lateral lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of lateral local recurrence due to (enlarged) lateral lymph nodes was confirmed, but without the prognostic impact of downsizing after neoadjuvant therapy. These results point toward the incorporation of primary lateral lymph node size into treatment planning. See Video Abstract.</p

Evaluation of National Surgical Practice for Lateral Lymph Nodes in Rectal Cancer in an Untrained Setting

Background: Involved lateral lymph nodes (LLNs) have been associated with increased local recurrence (LR) and ipsi-lateral LR (LLR) rates. However, consensus regarding the indication and type of surgical treatment for suspicious LLNs is lacking. This study evaluated the surgical treatment of LLNs in an untrained setting at a national level. Methods: Patients who underwent additional LLN surgery were selected from a national cross-sectional cohort study regarding patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery in 69 Dutch hospitals in 2016. LLN surgery consisted of either ‘node-picking’ (the removal of an individual LLN) or ‘partial regional node dissection’ (PRND; an incomplete resection of the LLN area). For all patients with primarily enlarged (≥7 mm) LLNs, those undergoing rectal surgery with an additional LLN procedure were compared to those undergoing only rectal resection. Results: Out of 3057 patients, 64 underwent additional LLN surgery, with 4-year LR and LLR rates of 26% and 15%, respectively. Forty-eight patients (75%) had enlarged LLNs, with corresponding recurrence rates of 26% and 19%, respectively. Node-picking (n = 40) resulted in a 20% 4-year LLR, and a 14% LLR after PRND (n = 8; p = 0.677). Multivariable analysis of 158 patients with enlarged LLNs undergoing additional LLN surgery (n = 48) or rectal resection alone (n = 110) showed no significant association of LLN surgery with 4-year LR or LLR, but suggested higher recurrence risks after LLN surgery (LR: hazard ratio [HR] 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7–3.2, p = 0.264; LLR: HR 1.9, 95% CI 0.2–2.5, p = 0.874). Conclusion: Evaluation of Dutch practice in 2016 revealed that approximately one-third of patients with primarily enlarged LLNs underwent surgical treatment, mostly consisting of node-picking. Recurrence rates were not significantly affected by LLN surgery, but did suggest worse outcomes. Outcomes of LLN surgery after adequate training requires further research.</p

Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy: should we preserve the pectoral fascia? Protocol of a Dutch double blinded, prospective, randomised controlled pilot study with a within-subject design (PROFAS)

Introduction Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) in women with a high risk of developing breast cancer has shown to provide the greatest risk reduction. Many surgical guidelines recommend the removal of the pectoral fascia (PF) in mastectomies; however, there is no evidence to support this statement. Reported wound-related complications following mastectomy include seroma, flap necrosis, infection and haematoma. Seroma causes discomfort and may delay the reconstructive procedures. Whether removal or preservation of the PF influences drain volume, seroma formation and other postoperative complications following BPM remains unclear. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of removal versus preservation of the PF on drain policy and seroma after BPM. Methods and analysis This is a double blinded, prospective, randomised controlled pilot study with a within-subject design. The inclusion criteria are women >18 years, presenting in the Academic Breast Cancer Centre Rotterdam, who are opting for BPM. Patients with a history or diagnosis of breast cancer are excluded. According to the sample size calculation based on the difference in total drain volume, a number of 21 eligible patients will be included. Randomisation will occur within the patient, which means PF preservation in one breast and PF removal in the contralateral breast. The primary study endpoint is total drainage volume. Secondary study outcomes include time to drain removal, number of needle aspirations, postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. Ethics and dissemination The study is approved by the Erasmus Medical Center Review Board (REC 2020-0431). Results will be presented during international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Trial registration number NCT05391763; clinicaltrials.go

Opportunities for personalised follow‐up care among patients with breast cancer: A scoping review to identify preference-sensitive decisions

Introduction: Current follow‐up arrangements for breast cancer do not optimally meet the needs of individual patients. We therefore reviewed the evidence on preferences and patient involvement in decisions about breast cancer follow‐up to explore the potential for personalised care. Methods: Studies published between 2008 and 2017 were extracted from MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE. We then identified decision categories related to content and form of follow‐up. Criteria for preference sensitiveness and patient involvement were compiled and applied to determine the extent to which decisions were sensitive to patient preferences and patients were involved. Results: Forty‐one studies were included in the full‐text analysis. Four decision categories were identified: “surveillance for recurrent/secondary breast cancer; consultations for physical and psychosocial effects; recurrence‐risk reduction by anti‐hormonal treatment; and improving quality of life after breast cancer.” There was little evidence that physicians treated decisions about anti‐hormonal treatment, menopausal symptoms, and follow‐up consultations as sensitive to patient preferences. Decisions about breast reconstruction were considered as very sensitive to patient preferences, and patients were usually involved. Conclusion: Patients are currently not involved in all decisions that affect them during follow‐up, indicating a need for improvements. Personalised follow‐up care could improve resource allocation and the value of care for patients