Summary Background For patients with breast cancer and metastases in the sentinel nodes, axillary dissection has been standard treatment. However, for patients with limited sentinel-node involvement, ...axillary dissection might be overtreatment. We designed IBCSG trial 23–01 to determine whether no axillary dissection was non-inferior to axillary dissection in patients with one or more micrometastatic (≤2 mm) sentinel nodes and tumour of maximum 5 cm. Methods In this multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial, patients were eligible if they had clinically non-palpable axillary lymph node(s) and a primary tumour of 5 cm or less and who, after sentinel-node biopsy, had one or more micrometastatic (≤2 mm) sentinel lymph nodes with no extracapsular extension. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to either undergo axillary dissection or not to undergo axillary dissection. Randomisation was stratified by centre and menopausal status. Treatment assignment was not masked. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival. Non-inferiority was defined as a hazard ratio (HR) of less than 1·25 for no axillary dissection versus axillary dissection. The analysis was by intention to treat. Per protocol, disease and survival information continues to be collected yearly. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00072293. Findings Between April 1, 2001, and Feb 28, 2010, 465 patients were randomly assigned to axillary dissection and 469 to no axillary dissection. After the exclusion of three patients, 464 patients were in the axillary dissection group and 467 patients were in the no axillary dissection group. After a median follow-up of 5·0 (IQR 3·6–7·3) years, we recorded 69 disease-free survival events in the axillary dissection group and 55 events in the no axillary dissection group. Breast-cancer-related events were recorded in 48 patients in the axillary dissection group and 47 in the no axillary dissection group (ten local recurrences in the axillary dissection group and eight in the no axillary dissection group; three and nine contralateral breast cancers; one and five regional recurrences; and 34 and 25 distant relapses). Other non-breast cancer events were recorded in 21 patients in the axillary dissection group and eight in the no axillary dissection group (20 and six second non-breast malignancies; and one and two deaths not due to a cancer event). 5-year disease-free survival was 87·8% (95% CI 84·4–91·2) in the group without axillary dissection and 84·4% (80·7–88·1) in the group with axillary dissection (log-rank p=0·16; HR for no axillary dissection vs axillary dissection was 0·78, 95% CI 0·55–1·11, non-inferiority p=0·0042). Patients with reported long-term surgical events (grade 3–4) included one sensory neuropathy (grade 3), three lymphoedema (two grade 3 and one grade 4), and three motor neuropathy (grade 3), all in the group that underwent axillary dissection, and one grade 3 motor neuropathy in the group without axillary dissection. One serious adverse event was reported, a postoperative infection in the axilla in the group with axillary dissection. Interpretation Axillary dissection could be avoided in patients with early breast cancer and limited sentinel-node involvement, thus eliminating complications of axillary surgery with no adverse effect on survival. Funding None.
•This ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline provides key recommendations and algorithms for the management of patients with EBC.•It covers diagnosis, staging, risk assessment, treatment, follow-up, ...specific situations and the patient perspective.•The author group is multidisciplinary, with experts representing a range of institutions worldwide.•Recommendations, including ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT scores where applicable, are based on available evidence and expert opinion.•Patient communication and shared decision making are covered with respect to diagnostic procedures and treatment options.
The 16th St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference 2019 in Vienna, Austria reviewed substantial new evidence on loco-regional and systemic therapies for early breast cancer.
Treatments were ...assessed in light of their intensity, duration and side-effects, estimating the magnitude of clinical benefit according to stage and biology of the disease. The Panel acknowledged that for many patients, the impact of adjuvant therapy or the adherence to specific guidelines may have modest impact on the risk of breast cancer recurrence or overall survival. For that reason, the Panel explicitly encouraged clinicians and patients to routinely discuss the magnitude of benefit for interventions as part of the development of the treatment plan.
The guidelines focus on common ductal and lobular breast cancer histologies arising in generally healthy women. Special breast cancer histologies may need different considerations, as do individual patients with other substantial health considerations. The panelists’ opinions reflect different interpretation of available data and expert opinion where is lack of evidence and sociocultural factors in their environment such as availability of and access to medical service, economic resources and reimbursement issues. Panelists encourage patient participation in well-designed clinical studies whenever available.
With these caveats in mind, the St. Gallen Consensus Conference seeks to provide guidance to clinicians on appropriate treatments for early-stage breast cancer and guidance for weighing the realistic tradeoffs between treatment and toxicity so that patients and clinical teams can make well-informed decisions on the basis of an honest reckoning of the magnitude of clinical benefit.
The 17th St Gallen International Breast Cancer Consensus Conference in 2021 was held virtually, owing to the global COVID-19 pandemic. More than 3300 participants took part in this important ...bi-annual critical review of the ‘state of the art’ in the multidisciplinary care of early-stage breast cancer. Seventy-four expert panelists (see Appendix 1) from all continents discussed and commented on the previously elaborated consensus questions, as well as many key questions on early breast cancer diagnosis and treatment asked by the audience. The theme of this year's conference was ‘Customizing local and systemic therapies.’ A well-organized program of pre-recorded symposia, live panel discussions and real-time panel voting results drew a worldwide audience of thousands, reflecting the far-reaching impact of breast cancer on every continent. The interactive technology platform allowed, for the first time, audience members to ask direct questions to panelists, and to weigh in with their own vote on several key panel questions. A hallmark of this meeting was to focus on customized recommendations for treatment of early-stage breast cancer. There is increasing recognition that the care of a breast cancer patient depends on highly individualized clinical features, including the stage at presentation, the biological subset of breast cancer, the genetic factors that may underlie breast cancer risk, the genomic signatures that inform treatment recommendations, the extent of response before surgery in patients who receive neoadjuvant therapy, and patient preferences. This customized approach to treatment requires integration of clinical care between patients and radiology, pathology, genetics, and surgical, medical and radiation oncology providers. It also requires a dynamic response from clinicians as they encounter accumulating clinical information at the time of diagnosis and then serially with each step in the treatment plan and follow-up, reflecting patient experiences and treatment response.
•Patients with BRCA1/2 associated breast cancer should receive olaparib, justifying broader genetic testing.•Genomic testing can identify ER positive, node-positive tumors that do not warrant chemotherapy.•Ovarian suppression may account for much of the chemotherapy benefit in premenopausal women with ER+ breast cancers.•Hypofractionated radiation therapy schedules should be the standard for most postsurgical radiation treatment.•Hereditary gene mutations with differing penetrance should prompt different surveillance and prophylaxis approaches for affected patients.
To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists estrogen (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer guideline.
A ...multidisciplinary international Expert Panel was convened to update the clinical practice guideline recommendations informed by a systematic review of the medical literature.
The Expert Panel continues to recommend ER testing of invasive breast cancers by validated immunohistochemistry as the standard for predicting which patients may benefit from endocrine therapy, and no other assays are recommended for this purpose. Breast cancer samples with 1% to 100% of tumor nuclei positive should be interpreted as ER positive. However, the Expert Panel acknowledges that there are limited data on endocrine therapy benefit for cancers with 1% to 10% of cells staining ER positive. Samples with these results should be reported using a new reporting category, ER Low Positive, with a recommended comment. A sample is considered ER negative if < 1% or 0% of tumor cell nuclei are immunoreactive. Additional strategies recommended to promote optimal performance, interpretation, and reporting of cases with an initial low to no ER staining result include establishing a laboratory-specific standard operating procedure describing additional steps used by the laboratory to confirm/adjudicate results. The status of controls should be reported for cases with 0% to 10% staining. Similar principles apply to PgR testing, which is used primarily for prognostic purposes in the setting of an ER-positive cancer. Testing of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) for ER is recommended to determine potential benefit of endocrine therapies to reduce risk of future breast cancer, while testing DCIS for PgR is considered optional. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.
van der Waals heterostructures assembled from atomically thin crystalline layers of diverse two-dimensional solids are emerging as a new paradigm in the physics of materials. We used infrared ...nanoimaging to study the properties of surface phonon polaritons in a representative van der Waals crystal, hexagonal boron nitride. We launched, detected, and imaged the polaritonic waves in real space and altered their wavelength by varying the number of crystal layers in our specimens. The measured dispersion of polaritonic waves was shown to be governed by the crystal thickness according to a scaling law that persists down to a few atomic layers. Our results are likely to hold true in other polar van der Waals crystals and may lead to new functionalities.
Planar laser-plasma interaction (LPI) experiments at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) have allowed access for the first time to regimes of electron density scale length (∼500 to 700 μm), ...electron temperature (∼3 to 5 keV), and laser intensity (6 to 16×10^{14} W/cm^{2}) that are relevant to direct-drive inertial confinement fusion ignition. Unlike in shorter-scale-length plasmas on OMEGA, scattered-light data on the NIF show that the near-quarter-critical LPI physics is dominated by stimulated Raman scattering (SRS) rather than by two-plasmon decay (TPD). This difference in regime is explained based on absolute SRS and TPD threshold considerations. SRS sidescatter tangential to density contours and other SRS mechanisms are observed. The fraction of laser energy converted to hot electrons is ∼0.7% to 2.9%, consistent with observed levels of SRS. The intensity threshold for hot-electron production is assessed, and the use of a Si ablator slightly increases this threshold from ∼4×10^{14} to ∼6×10^{14} W/cm^{2}. These results have significant implications for mitigation of LPI hot-electron preheat in direct-drive ignition designs.
The 18th St Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference held in March 2023, in Vienna, Austria, assessed significant new findings for local and systemic therapies for early breast cancer with a ...focus on the evaluation of multimodal treatment options. The emergence of more effective, innovative agents in both the preoperative (primary or neoadjuvant) and post-operative (adjuvant) settings has underscored the pivotal role of a multidisciplinary approach in treatment decision making, particularly when selecting systemic therapy for an individual patient. The importance of multidisciplinary discussions regarding the clinical benefits of interventions was explicitly emphasized by the consensus panel as an integral part of developing an optimal treatment plan with the ‘right’ degree of intensity and duration. The panelists focused on controversies surrounding the management of common ductal/no special type and lobular breast cancer histology, which account for the vast majority of breast tumors. The expert opinion of the panelists was based on interpretations of available data, as well as current practices in their professional environments, personal and socioeconomic factors affecting patients, and cognizant of varying reimbursement and accessibility constraints around the world. The panelists strongly advocated patient participation in well-designed clinical studies whenever feasible. With these considerations in mind, the St Gallen Consensus Conference aims to offer guidance to clinicians regarding appropriate treatments for early-stage breast cancer and assist in balancing the realistic trade-offs between treatment benefit and toxicity, enabling patients and clinicians to make well-informed choices through a shared decision-making process.
•The optimal estrogen receptor (ER) threshold for initiating endocrine therapy remains controversial.•Treatments for ER-positive breast cancer (BC) are personalized based on tumor stage, subtype, menopausal status.•For stage I (TNM), HER2-positive BC, the panelists continue to favor paclitaxel/trastuzumab as the recommended regimen.•Regardless of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab, the panelists favored adjuvant pembrolizumab.
Summary Background The International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model offers prognostic information for patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. We tested the accuracy ...of the model in an external population and compared it with other prognostic models. Methods We included patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were treated with first-line VEGF-targeted treatment at 13 international cancer centres and who were registered in the Consortium's database but had not contributed to the initial development of the Consortium Database model. The primary endpoint was overall survival. We compared the Database Consortium model with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF) model, the International Kidney Cancer Working Group (IKCWG) model, the French model, and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) model by concordance indices and other measures of model fit. Findings Overall, 1028 patients were included in this study, of whom 849 had complete data to assess the Database Consortium model. Median overall survival was 18·8 months (95% 17·6–21·4). The predefined Database Consortium risk factors (anaemia, thrombocytosis, neutrophilia, hypercalcaemia, Karnofsky performance status <80%, and <1 year from diagnosis to treatment) were independent predictors of poor overall survival in the external validation set (hazard ratios ranged between 1·27 and 2·08, concordance index 0·71, 95% CI 0·68–0·73). When patients were segregated into three risk categories, median overall survival was 43·2 months (95% CI 31·4–50·1) in the favourable risk group (no risk factors; 157 patients), 22·5 months (18·7–25·1) in the intermediate risk group (one to two risk factors; 440 patients), and 7·8 months (6·5–9·7) in the poor risk group (three or more risk factors; 252 patients; p<0·0001; concordance index 0·664, 95% CI 0·639–0·689). 672 patients had complete data to test all five models. The concordance index of the CCF model was 0·662 (95% CI 0·636–0·687), of the French model 0·640 (0·614–0·665), of the IKCWG model 0·668 (0·645–0·692), and of the MSKCC model 0·657 (0·632–0·682). The reported versus predicted number of deaths at 2 years was most similar in the Database Consortium model compared with the other models. Interpretation The Database Consortium model is now externally validated and can be applied to stratify patients by risk in clinical trials and to counsel patients about prognosis. Funding None.
To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer guideline.
...A multidisciplinary international Expert Panel was convened to update the clinical practice guideline recommendations informed by a systematic review of the medical literature.
The Expert Panel continues to recommend ER testing of invasive breast cancers by validated immunohistochemistry as the standard for predicting which patients may benefit from endocrine therapy, and no other assays are recommended for this purpose. Breast cancer samples with 1% to 100% of tumor nuclei positive should be interpreted as ER positive. However, the Expert Panel acknowledges that there are limited data on endocrine therapy benefit for cancers with 1% to 10% of cells staining ER positive. Samples with these results should be reported using a new reporting category, ER Low Positive, with a recommended comment. A sample is considered ER negative if < 1% or 0% of tumor cell nuclei are immunoreactive. Additional strategies recommended to promote optimal performance, interpretation, and reporting of cases with an initial low to no ER staining result include establishing a laboratory-specific standard operating procedure describing additional steps used by the laboratory to confirm/adjudicate results. The status of controls should be reported for cases with 0% to 10% staining. Similar principles apply to PgR testing, which is used primarily for prognostic purposes in the setting of an ER-positive cancer. Testing of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) for ER is recommended to determine potential benefit of endocrine therapies to reduce risk of future breast cancer, while testing DCIS for PgR is considered optional. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .
PDF
