We have located links that may give you full text access.
Use of Sentinel Lymph Node Dissection After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Node-Positive Breast Cancer at Diagnosis: Practice Patterns of American Society of Breast Surgeons Members.
Annals of Surgical Oncology 2017 October
BACKGROUND: The accuracy of sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) in clinically node-positive patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy has been investigated in clinical trials. This survey was designed to assess familiarity and impact of these trial findings into practice.
METHODS: American Society of Breast Surgeons members were invited by e-mail to complete an anonymous online survey. A total of 642 members responded (21% of 3090 eligible members). Results were summarized as proportions based on the number of responses to each question.
RESULTS: Respondents indicated knowledge of the Z1071 (86%), SENTINA (57%), and SN-FNAC (39%) trials. The published false negative rates (FNR) of the trials were correctly reported by 53% (336/638) of respondents. Before the trials, 45% (285/636) offered SLND compared with 85% (543/638) after the trials. In the 556 respondents who reported knowledge of at least one trial, 310 (56%) currently offer SLND to >50% of patients, 175 (31%) offer to <50%, and 70 (13%) routinely perform axillary lymph node dissection. Respondents who reported knowledge of the trials but did not change their practice to incorporate SLND (n = 67) cited concerns over lack of outcome data (64%), worries about FNR (42%), lack of resources (34%), or objections from radiation oncologists (25%), medical oncologists (18%), or other surgeons (8%).
CONCLUSIONS: The publication of trials evaluating SLND in clinically node-positive patients has resulted in changes in practice. Concerns over the FNR and lack of outcome data limit incorporation of SLND into practice by some surgeons.
METHODS: American Society of Breast Surgeons members were invited by e-mail to complete an anonymous online survey. A total of 642 members responded (21% of 3090 eligible members). Results were summarized as proportions based on the number of responses to each question.
RESULTS: Respondents indicated knowledge of the Z1071 (86%), SENTINA (57%), and SN-FNAC (39%) trials. The published false negative rates (FNR) of the trials were correctly reported by 53% (336/638) of respondents. Before the trials, 45% (285/636) offered SLND compared with 85% (543/638) after the trials. In the 556 respondents who reported knowledge of at least one trial, 310 (56%) currently offer SLND to >50% of patients, 175 (31%) offer to <50%, and 70 (13%) routinely perform axillary lymph node dissection. Respondents who reported knowledge of the trials but did not change their practice to incorporate SLND (n = 67) cited concerns over lack of outcome data (64%), worries about FNR (42%), lack of resources (34%), or objections from radiation oncologists (25%), medical oncologists (18%), or other surgeons (8%).
CONCLUSIONS: The publication of trials evaluating SLND in clinically node-positive patients has resulted in changes in practice. Concerns over the FNR and lack of outcome data limit incorporation of SLND into practice by some surgeons.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Prevention and treatment of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in people with diabetes mellitus: a focus on glucose control and comorbidities.Diabetologia 2024 April 17
British Society for Rheumatology guideline on management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease.Rheumatology 2024 April 17
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Albumin: a comprehensive review and practical guideline for clinical use.European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2024 April 13
Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Clinical Pearls for Primary Care Providers and Gastroenterologists.Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2024 April
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app