The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10981-22023 AMAROS trial evaluated axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) versus axillary radiotherapy (ART) in patients with cT1-2, ...node-negative breast cancer and a positive sentinel node (SN) biopsy. At 5 years, both modalities showed excellent and comparable axillary control, with significantly less morbidity after ART. We now report the preplanned 10-year analysis of the axillary recurrence rate (ARR), overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS), and an updated 5-year analysis of morbidity and quality of life.
In this open-label multicenter phase III noninferiority trial, 4,806 patients underwent SN biopsy; 1,425 were node-positive and randomly assigned to either ALND (n = 744) or ART (n = 681).
Per intention-to-treat analysis, 10-year ARR cumulative incidence was 0.93% (95% CI, 0.18 to 1.68; seven events) after ALND and 1.82% (95% CI, 0.74 to 2.94; 11 events) after ART (hazard ratio HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 0.67 to 4.39). There were no differences in OS (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.52) or DFS (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.46). ALND was associated with a higher lymphedema rate in updated 5-year analyses (24.5%
11.9%;
< .001). Quality-of-life scales did not differ by treatment through 5 years. Exploratory analysis showed a 10-year cumulative incidence of second primary cancers of 12.1% (95% CI, 9.6 to 14.9) after ART and 8.3% (95% CI, 6.3 to 10.7) after ALND.
This 10-year analysis confirms a low ARR after both ART and ALND with no difference in OS, DFS, and locoregional control. Considering less arm morbidity, ART is preferred over ALND for patients with SN-positive cT1-2 breast cancer.
OBJECTIVE:To assess potentially modifiable perioperative risk factors for anastomotic leakage in adult patients undergoing colorectal surgery.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA:Colorectal anastomotic leakage ...(CAL) is the single most important denominator of postoperative outcome after colorectal surgery. To lower the risk of CAL, the current research focused on the association of potentially modifiable risk factors, both surgical and anesthesiological.
METHODS:A consecutive series of adult patients undergoing colorectal surgery with primary anastomosis was enrolled from January 2016 to December 2018. Fourteen hospitals in Europe and Australia prospectively collected perioperative data by carrying out the LekCheck, a short checklist carried out in the operating theater as a time-out procedure just prior to the creation of the anastomosis to check perioperative values on 1) general condition 2) local perfusion and oxygenation, 3) contamination, and 4) surgery related factors. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to identify perioperative potentially modifiable risk factors for CAL.
RESULTS:There were 1562 patients included in this study. CAL was reported in 132 (8.5%) patients. Low preoperative hemoglobin (OR 5.40, P < 0.001), contamination of the operative field (OR 2.98, P < 0.001), hyperglycemia (OR 2.80, P = 0.003), duration of surgery of more than 3 hours (OR 1.86, P = 0.010), administration of vasopressors (OR 1.80, P = 0.010), inadequate timing of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (OR 1.62, P = 0.047), and application of epidural analgesia (OR, 1.81, P = 0. 014) were all associated with CAL.
CONCLUSIONS:This study identified 7 perioperative potentially modifiable risk factors for CAL. The results enable the development of a multimodal and multidisciplinary strategy to create an optimal perioperative condition to finally lower CAL rates.
Purpose: The majority of patients with early-stage breast cancer are treated with breast-conserving therapy (BCT). Several clinical
risk factors are associated with local recurrence (LR) after BCT ...but are unable to explain all instances of LR after BCT.
Here, gene expression microarrays are used to identify novel risk factors for LR after BCT.
Experimental Design: Gene expression profiles of 56 primary invasive breast carcinomas from patients who developed a LR after BCT were compared
with profiles of 109 tumors from patients who did not develop a LR after BCT. Both unsupervised and supervised methods of
classification were used to separate patients into groups corresponding to disease outcome. In addition, for 15 patients,
the gene expression profile in the recurrence was compared with that of the primary tumor.
Results: The two main clusters found by hierarchical cluster analysis of all 165 primary invasive breast carcinomas revealed no association
with LR. Predefined gene sets (molecular subtypes and âchromosomal instabilityâ signature) are associated with LR ( P = 0.0002 and 0.003, respectively). Significant analysis of microarrays revealed an association between LR and cell proliferation,
not captured by histologic grading. Class prediction analysis constructed a gene classifier, which was successfully validated,
cross-platform, on an independent data set of 161 patients (log-rank P = 0.041). In multivariate analysis, young age was the only independent predictor of LR.
Conclusions: We have constructed and cross-platform validated a gene expression profile predictive for LR after BCT, which is characterized
by genes involved in cell proliferation but not a surrogate for high histologic grade.
Prognostic gene expression signatures can be used in combination with classical clinicopathological factors to guide adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. ...However, long-term outcome data after introduction of genomic testing in the treatment decision-making process are limited.
In the prospective RASTER study, the tumours of 427 patients with cTanyN0M0 breast cancer were tested to assess the 70-gene signature (MammaPrint). The results were provided to their treating physician to be incorporated in the decision-making on adjuvant systemic therapy. Here, we report the long-term outcome of the 310 patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative tumours by clinical and genomic risk categories at a median follow-up of 10.3 years.
Among the clinically high-risk patients, 45 (49%) were classified as genomically low risk. In this subgroup, at 10 years, distant recurrence free interval (DRFI) was similar between patients treated with (95.7% 95% CI 87.7–100) and without (95.5% 95% CI 87.1–100) chemotherapy. Within the group of clinically low-risk patients, 56 (26%) were classified as genomically high risk. Within the clinically low-risk group, beyond 5 years, a difference emerged between the genomically high- and low-risk subgroup resulting in a 10-year DRFI of 84.3% (95% CI 74.8–95.0) and 93.4% (95% CI 89.5–97.5), respectively. Interestingly, genomic ultralow-risk patients have a 10-year DRFI of 96.7% (95% CI 90.5–100), largely (79%) without systemic therapy.
These data confirm that clinically high-risk, genomically low-risk tumours have an excellent outcome in the real-world setting of shared decision-making. Together with the updated results of the MINDACT trial, these data support the use of the MammaPrint, in ER-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative, clinically high-risk breast cancer patients.
ISRCTN71917916
•Clinical high-risk, genomic low-risk tumours have similar DRFI with or without chemo.•Genomic ultralow-risk tumours have a good outcome largely without systemic therapy.•10-year DRFI in clinical low-risk, genomic high-risk tumours suggest undertreatment.
Abstract Introduction Multifocal breast cancer is associated with a higher risk of nodal involvement compared to unifocal breast cancer and the drainage pattern from multifocal localisations may be ...different. For this reason, the value of the sentinel node biopsy (SNB) procedure for this indication is debated. The aim of the current analysis was to evaluate the sentinel node identification rate and nodal involvement in patients with a multifocal tumour in the EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial. Patients and Methods From the first 4000 registered patients, 342 were identified with a multifocal tumour on histological examination and compared to a randomly selected control group of 684 patients with a unifocal tumour. The outcome of the SNB was assessed. Results The sentinel node was identified in 96% of the patients with a multifocal tumour and in 98% of those with unifocal disease. In the multifocal group, 51% had a metastasis in the sentinel node compared to 28% in the unifocal group; and further nodal involvement after a positive sentinel node was found in 40% (38/95) and 39% (39/101) respectively. Conclusion In this prospective international multicentre study, the 96% detection rate indicates that the SNB procedure can be highly effective in patients with a multifocal tumour. Though the tumour-positive rate of the sentinel node was twice as high in the multifocal group compared to the unifocal group, further nodal involvement after a positive sentinel node was similar in both groups. This suggests that the SNB procedure is safe in patients with multifocal breast cancer.
Summary Background If treatment of the axilla is indicated in patients with breast cancer who have a positive sentinel node, axillary lymph node dissection is the present standard. Although axillary ...lymph node dissection provides excellent regional control, it is associated with harmful side-effects. We aimed to assess whether axillary radiotherapy provides comparable regional control with fewer side-effects. Methods Patients with T1–2 primary breast cancer and no palpable lymphadenopathy were enrolled in the randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated allocation schedule to receive either axillary lymph node dissection or axillary radiotherapy in case of a positive sentinel node, stratified by institution. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of 5-year axillary recurrence, considered to be not more than 4% for the axillary radiotherapy group compared with an expected 2% in the axillary lymph node dissection group. Analyses were by intention to treat and per protocol. The AMAROS trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00014612. Findings Between Feb 19, 2001, and April 29, 2010, 4823 patients were enrolled at 34 centres from nine European countries, of whom 4806 were eligible for randomisation. 2402 patients were randomly assigned to receive axillary lymph node dissection and 2404 to receive axillary radiotherapy. Of the 1425 patients with a positive sentinel node, 744 had been randomly assigned to axillary lymph node dissection and 681 to axillary radiotherapy; these patients constituted the intention-to-treat population. Median follow-up was 6·1 years (IQR 4·1–8·0) for the patients with positive sentinel lymph nodes. In the axillary lymph node dissection group, 220 (33%) of 672 patients who underwent axillary lymph node dissection had additional positive nodes. Axillary recurrence occurred in four of 744 patients in the axillary lymph node dissection group and seven of 681 in the axillary radiotherapy group. 5-year axillary recurrence was 0·43% (95% CI 0·00–0·92) after axillary lymph node dissection versus 1·19% (0·31–2·08) after axillary radiotherapy. The planned non-inferiority test was underpowered because of the low number of events. The one-sided 95% CI for the underpowered non-inferiority test on the hazard ratio was 0·00–5·27, with a non-inferiority margin of 2. Lymphoedema in the ipsilateral arm was noted significantly more often after axillary lymph node dissection than after axillary radiotherapy at 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years. Interpretation Axillary lymph node dissection and axillary radiotherapy after a positive sentinel node provide excellent and comparable axillary control for patients with T1–2 primary breast cancer and no palpable lymphadenopathy. Axillary radiotherapy results in significantly less morbidity. Funding EORTC Charitable Trust.
Abstract only
LBA1001
Background: Sentinel node biopsy (SNB) is standard in assessing axillary lymph node status for cN0 breast cancer patients. In case of a positive SNB, if treatment is advised, ...axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) is the current standard. Although ALND provides excellent regional control, it may give harmful side effects. Axillary radiotherapy (ART) instead of ALND was hypothesized to provide comparable regional control and less side effects. Methods: From 2001 to 2010, patients with cT1E2N0 primary breast cancer were enrolled in the EORTC phase III non-inferiority AMAROS trial. Patients were randomized between ALND and ART in case of a positive SNB. Primary endpoint was 5-year axillary recurrence rate. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), quality of life (QOL), shoulder movement and lymphedema at 1 and 5 years. Results: Of the 4,806 patients entered in the trial, 744 in the ALND-arm and 681 in the ART-arm had a positive SNB, 60% with a macrometastasis. The two treatment-arms were comparable regarding age, tumor size, grade, tumor type, and adjuvant systemic treatment. With a median follow up of 6.1 years, the 5-year axillary recurrence rate after a positive SNB was 0.54% (4/744) after ALND versus 1.03% (7/681) after ART. The planned non-inferiority test was underpowered because of the unexpectedly low number of events. The axillary recurrence rate after a negative SNB was 0.8% (25/3131). There were no significant differences between treatment arms regarding OS (5 yr estimates: 93.27% ALND, 92.52% ART, p=0.3386) and DFS (5 yr estimates: 86.90% ALND, 82.65% ART, p=0.1788). Lymphedema was found significantly more often after ALND (1yr: 40% ALND, 22% ART, p<0.0001 and 5yr: 28% ALND, 14% ART, p<0.0001). There was a nonsignificant trend toward more early shoulder movement impairment after ART. These findings were compatible with a trend in two QOL items in the arm symptom scale: swelling (ART better) and movement (ALND better). There were no other differences in QOL. Conclusion: ALND and ART after a positive SNB provide excellent and comparable regional control. ART reduces the risk of short-term and long-term lymphedema compared to ALND. Clinical trial information: NCT00014612.
Abstract only
LBA1001
The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 7:30 AM (EDT) on Monday, June, 3, 2013, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement ...to the June 20, 2013, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Monday edition of ASCO Daily News.
•“Rodent studies support an important role of social play in the development of brain and behavior”.•“Children with a chronic disease are at risk for physical, social, emotional and cognitive ...problems”.•“Facilitating (social) play may improve the developmental outcome of chronical diseased children”.•“All children may benefit from knowledge about the impressive resilience of young patients”.•“Interactive technology/games can help patients to play with peers, fostering social inclusion”.
Play is of vital importance for the healthy development of children. From a developmental perspective, play offers ample physical, emotional, cognitive, and social benefits. It allows children and adolescents to develop motor skills, experiment with their (social) behavioural repertoire, simulate alternative scenarios, and address the various positive and negative consequences of their behaviour in a safe and engaging context.
Children with a chronic or life-threatening disease may face obstacles that negatively impact play and play development, possibly impeding developmental milestones, beyond the actual illness itself. Currently, there is limited understanding of the impact of (1) aberrant or suppressed play and (2) play-related interventions on the development of chronic diseased children. We argue that stimulating play behaviour enhances the adaptability of a child to a (chronic) stressful condition and promotes cognitive, social, emotional and psychomotor functioning, thereby strengthening the basis for their future health. Systematic play research will help to develop interventions for young patients, to better cope with the negative consequences of their illness and stimulate healthy development.
IntroductionYoung people (aged 10–25 years) with chronic diseases are vulnerable to have reduced social participation and quality of life. It is important to empower young people to engage in their ...chronic diseases self-management. In comparison with traditional face-to-face care, interventions delivered through the internet and related technologies (eHealth) are less stigmatising and more accessible. Gamified eHealth self-management interventions may be particularly promising for young people. This systematic review aims at identifying (1) the game mechanics that have been implemented in eHealth interventions to support young people’s self-management of their chronic (somatic or psychiatric) diseases, (2) the investigators’ rationale for implementing such game mechanics and, if possible, (3) the effects of these interventions.Methods and analysisThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis statement guidelines will be followed. A systematic search of the literature will be conducted in Embase, Psycinfo and Web of Science from inception until 30 August 2022. Studies will be eligible if focused on (1) young people (aged 10–25 years) with chronic diseases and (2) describing gamified eHealth self-management interventions. When possible, the effects of the gamified interventions will be compared with non-gamified interventions or care-as-usual. Primary quantitative, qualitative or mixed-method studies written in English will be included. Two independent reviewers will (1) select studies, (2) extract and summarise the implemented game mechanics as well as the characteristics of the intervention and study, (3) evaluate their methodological quality and (4) synthesise the evidence. The reviewers will reach a consensus through discussion, and if required, a third researcher will be consulted.Ethics and disseminationAs systematic reviews use publicly available data, no formal ethical review and approval are needed. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at conferences and communicated to relevant stakeholders including patient organisations via the eHealth Junior Consortium.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021293037.
PDF
