Abstract ES7-1: Methods to minimize the false negative rate of sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for node positive breast cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is known to decrease the extent of disease in the breast and increase rates of breast conservation. In addition, NAC also can reduce the likelihood of nodal positivity and hence decrease need for axillary node dissection and its associated morbidities. Three prospective clinical trials have assessed the false negative rate (FNR) of SLN after NAC for patients with clinically node-positive disease at presentation. The American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z1071 study reported a false negative rate (FNR) of SLN surgery of 12.6% in patients with cN1 disease with 2 or more SLNs resected. The FNR was lower at 10.6% when dual tracer technique was utilized. Additional analysis showed that when a clip was placed in the positive node at diagnosis and the clipped node was resected as one of the SLNs, the FNR was 6.8%. The Canadian study (SN FNAC - sentinel node following neoadjuvant chemotherapy) reported a FNR of 13.3% when defining SLN with isolated tumor cells (ITC) as negative and 8.4% when including ITC in the definition of a positive SLN. The SENTINA study from Europe reported an overall FNR of 14.2%, however when excluding patients with only a single SLN removed the FNR was 9.8%. Further work with preoperative localization of the clipped node with a seed and resection of the localized clipped node along with the sentinel nodes (termed targeted axillary dissection) has been shown to have a FNR of 2.4%. Surgeons are incorporating SLN after NAC into their clinical practice for patients with a good response to NAC and thus use of SLN surgery after NAC for patients with node-positive breast cancer is increasing. There are multiple methods that can decrease the FNR of the procedure in this setting. These include use of dual tracer for SLN identification, resection of the initial biopsy-proven positive node, resection of at least 2 SLNs and use of immunohistochemical staining of the SLNs. There are several different techniques to assist with ensuring resection of the initially biopsy-proven positive lymph node which include varying methods to mark the node at diagnosis and ways to identify the node at time of SLN surgery. The node can be marked at the time of percutaneous lymph node biopsy (or at a subsequent visit prior to initiation of NAC) with a clip, a radioactive seed, or tattooed with ink. At the time of surgery, if ink or a radioactive seed was placed, the node can be identified using these techniques at the time of axillary surgery. If a clip was placed at diagnosis, this can undergo preoperative localization, with a radioactive seed or wire, to maximize likelihood of identifying the clipped node during surgery. For patients with biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer, SLN surgery after NAC allows assessment of residual nodal disease and can enable patients who have their axillary disease eradicated by NAC to avoid ALND. Citation Format: Boughey J. Methods to minimize the false negative rate of sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for node positive breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr ES7-1.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».