4.7 Article

Complete Axillary Lymph Node Dissection Versus Clinical Follow-up in Breast Cancer Patients with Sentinel Node Micrometastasis: Final Results from the Multicenter Clinical Trial AATRM 048/13/2000

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 120-127

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-012-2569-y

关键词

-

资金

  1. Catalan Agency for Health Information, Assessment and Quality, Barcelona, Spain [AATRM 048/13/2000]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It has been suggested that selective sentinel node (SN) biopsy alone can be used to manage early breast cancer, but definite evidence to support this notion is lacking. The aim of this study was to investigate whether refraining from completion axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) suffices to produce the same prognostic information and disease control as proceeding with completion ALND in early breast cancer patients showing micrometastasis at SN biopsy. This prospective, randomized clinical trial included patients with newly diagnosed early-stage breast cancer (T < 3.5 cm, clinical N0, M0) who underwent surgical excision as primary treatment. All had micrometastatic SN. Patients were randomly assigned to one of the two study arms: complete ALND (control arm) or clinical follow-up (experimental arm). Median follow-up was 5 years, recurrence was assessed, and the primary end point was disease-free survival. From a total sample of 247 patients, 14 withdrew, leaving 112 in the control arm and 121 in the experimental arm. In 15 control subjects (13 %), completion ALND was positive, with a low tumor burden. Four patients experienced disease recurrence: 1 (1 %) of 108 control subjects and 3 (2.5 %) of 119 experimental patients. There were no differences in disease-free survival (p = 0.325) between arms and no cancer-related deaths. Our results strongly suggest that in early breast cancer patients with SN micrometastasis, selective SN lymphadenectomy suffices to control locoregional and distant disease, with no significant effects on survival.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据