Incorporating Lymphovenous Anastomosis in Clinically Node-Positive Women Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Shared Decision-Making Model and Nuanced Approached to the Axilla
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Lymphedema remains a risk for 13-34% of breast cancer patients who require an axillary dissection (ALND) and radiation. Immediate lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA) may mitigate lymphedema by up to 30% by restoring the physiologic lymphatic drainage immediately after ALND. Currently, completion of ALND (cALND) versus radiation after neoadjuvant therapy (NAC) is being addressed by the Alliance A11202 trial, leaving a paucity of data to guide practice. Our study describes the implementation process of LVA into clinical practice after NAC for node-positive breast cancer in the current clinical context. METHODS: We reviewed a prospective database of LVA in node-positive patients (cT1-4,Nany) who received NAC followed by axillary surgery ± immediate LVA from October 2021 to 2022. The evolution of the surgical approach is described. Specifically, patients who downstaged to clinically negative nodes post-NAC were offered targeted SLNB with dual-tracer and intraoperative frozen section (FS). Patients were reminded that the standard of care for any node positive is cALND. Immediate cALND with LVA was performed for grossly positive nodes or all positive SLNs; cALND was omitted for those with negative SLNs. For a microscopic disease on a frozen section, a shared decision was made pre-operatively, given each patient's differing valuations of the benefit and risks of cALND ± LVA versus no cALND with planned regional radiation postoperatively. LVA was offered as an option as part of our institutional evaluation of the procedure. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients were included; the mean age was 49.9 (range 32-75) with stage IIA to IIIB breast cancer. Of these, 6 (40%) were triple negative, 5 (33.3%) HER-2 positive, and 4 (26.7%) ER/PR+ HER-2 negative. There were 13 women (86.7%) who had persistent axillary adenopathy based on clinical and/or ultrasound assessment, with 8 patients proceeding directly to ALND with LVA. Among these patients, 3 (37.5%) had pathologic nodal disease, and 5 (62.5%) were node negative, confirming the limitations of pre-operative imaging. As a result, the subsequent 7 (46.7%) underwent targeted SLNB with FS, with 3 patients (42.9%) avoiding an ALND as a result of a negative FS. A total of 4 patients (57.1%) had 1 or more positive lymph nodes on FS: 3 proceeded with a cALND and LVA, and 1 patient (14.2%) opted for no cALND based on a pre-operative discussion and received adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy. Of the 11 patients who underwent ALND and LVA, 1 patient (9.1%) developed lymphedema at 6.9 months following their surgery. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of pre-operative US were 46.7%, 85.7%, and 12.5% and intraoperative FS were 88.0%, 72.7%, and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: As adjuvant nodal radiation and systemic therapy continue to improve, the benefit of a cALND in patients with the limited residual disease remains unclear as we await the outcomes from clinical trials. In the era of clinical uncertainty, we propose a nuanced approach to the axilla by utilizing a shared decision model with patients, incorporating targeted SLNB with FS and completion node dissection when required and desired by the patient, coupled with LVA in a simple stepwise treatment pathway.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».