FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1993273998> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1993273998 endingPage "3645" @default.
• W1993273998 startingPage "3643" @default.
• W1993273998 abstract "The acceptance of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy as standard care in cN0 breast cancer is one of the great success stories in contemporary surgical oncology and is supported by the results of at least 69 observational studies, 7 randomized trials, and extensive literature covering all aspects of the procedure. The logical next question in the evolution of axillary staging is to ask whether all SLNpositive patients require axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), and it is clear that for many American surgeons they do not. In a retrospective study from the National Cancer Data Base, Bilimoria et al. report on 97,314 SLNpositive patients treated nationwide between 1998 and 2006. They show 23 % of patients with SLN macrometastases ([2 mm, pN1) and 55 % with SLN micrometastases (0.2–2 mm, pN1mi) did not have ALND, yet for both pN1 and pN1mi SLN disease, axillary local recurrence and 5-year relative survival were the same with or without ALND. These suggestive results are of course subject to selection bias, but are confirmed by ACOSOG Z0011, a unique and visionary prospective trial that randomized 813 SLNpositive patients with clinical stage T1-2N0 breast cancer to ALND vs no further surgery. All patients were SLNpositive by routine H&E (not immunohistochemical) staining, and all had breast conservation including wholebreast RT. Patients with 3 or more positive SLN (or with matted nodes) were excluded, and formal axillary RT was not allowed. Additional positive nodes were found in 27 % of the patients who had ALND, but at 6 years’ follow-up there were no differences between the ALND and noALND arms in local (3.6 % vs 1.9 %), regional (0.5 % vs 0.9 %), or overall locoregional recurrence (4.1 % vs 2.8 %), nor were there any differences in disease-free or overall survival. Over the last 2 years many institutions and surgeons in the United States (and to a lesser extent in Europe and worldwide) have found the results of Z0011 to be persuasive and practice-changing, incorporating into their treatment guidelines a policy of ‘‘no-ALND’’ for SLN-positive patients who meet the Z0011 selection criteria. In this issue of the Annals, Montemurro and colleagues ask whether the growing acceptance of Z0011 may have been premature. Among 321 of their own SLN-positive breast cancer patients who matched the Z0011 selection criteria, all of whom had ALND, they ask how often the results of ALND were sufficient to change the systemic therapy. In their study design, 2 medical oncologists retrospectively reviewed each patient’s chart twice, first making a recommendation for systemic therapy based on SLN status alone, and then incorporating the results of the ALND. They found that the information gained from the ALND changed the recommended treatment in 16 % of patients, most of them ER-positive/her2-negative (luminal A and B) and most in the direction of ‘‘ACT’’ (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel) chemotherapy. They conclude by suggesting that to avoid undertreatment ALND may be appropriate for some, if not all, SLNpositive patients meeting the Z0011 criteria. Their argument deserves serious consideration, but I do not share their concerns, for the following reasons. First, the subtext of their study is the hypothesis that there are node-positive patients who do not require chemotherapy. This is expressed obliquely in the 2011 St. Gallen Consensus document: ‘‘the Panel did not believe that node positivity per se was an indication for use of chemotherapy, though a strong majority would use it if more than 3 lymph nodes were involved.’’ This fits with the authors’ observation that ALND changed therapy primarily by finding additional positive nodes in those SLNSociety of Surgical Oncology 2012" @default.
• W1993273998 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1993273998 creator A5042349461 @default.
• W1993273998 date "2012-07-31" @default.
• W1993273998 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W1993273998 title "Does the Rapid Acceptance of ACOSOG Z0011 Compromise Selection of Systemic Therapy?" @default.
• W1993273998 cites W1701849548 @default.
• W1993273998 cites W1961026612 @default.
• W1993273998 cites W1990364400 @default.
• W1993273998 cites W1993808763 @default.
• W1993273998 cites W2071665160 @default.
• W1993273998 cites W2072858445 @default.
• W1993273998 cites W2096785769 @default.
• W1993273998 cites W2105882193 @default.
• W1993273998 cites W2113344831 @default.
• W1993273998 cites W2132893003 @default.
• W1993273998 cites W2154866373 @default.
• W1993273998 cites W2160377567 @default.
• W1993273998 cites W2168677926 @default.
• W1993273998 cites W2202861078 @default.
• W1993273998 doi "https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2508-y" @default.
• W1993273998 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22847121" @default.
• W1993273998 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W1993273998 type Work @default.
• W1993273998 sameAs 1993273998 @default.
• W1993273998 citedByCount "6" @default.
• W1993273998 countsByYear W19932739982013 @default.
• W1993273998 countsByYear W19932739982014 @default.
• W1993273998 countsByYear W19932739982016 @default.
• W1993273998 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1993273998 hasAuthorship W1993273998A5042349461 @default.
• W1993273998 hasBestOaLocation W19932739981 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConcept C143998085 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConcept C185926286 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConcept C2780140570 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConcept C46355384 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConcept C530470458 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConcept C81917197 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConceptScore W1993273998C121608353 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConceptScore W1993273998C126322002 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConceptScore W1993273998C143998085 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConceptScore W1993273998C144024400 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConceptScore W1993273998C154945302 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConceptScore W1993273998C185926286 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConceptScore W1993273998C2780140570 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConceptScore W1993273998C36289849 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConceptScore W1993273998C41008148 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConceptScore W1993273998C46355384 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConceptScore W1993273998C530470458 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConceptScore W1993273998C71924100 @default.
• W1993273998 hasConceptScore W1993273998C81917197 @default.
• W1993273998 hasIssue "12" @default.
• W1993273998 hasLocation W19932739981 @default.
• W1993273998 hasLocation W19932739982 @default.
• W1993273998 hasOpenAccess W1993273998 @default.
• W1993273998 hasPrimaryLocation W19932739981 @default.
• W1993273998 hasRelatedWork W2085796500 @default.
• W1993273998 hasRelatedWork W2101013113 @default.
• W1993273998 hasRelatedWork W2162628022 @default.
• W1993273998 hasRelatedWork W2971869251 @default.
• W1993273998 hasRelatedWork W3198144951 @default.
• W1993273998 hasRelatedWork W3214868061 @default.
• W1993273998 hasRelatedWork W4224118945 @default.
• W1993273998 hasRelatedWork W4293105222 @default.
• W1993273998 hasRelatedWork W581228806 @default.
• W1993273998 hasRelatedWork W2592087286 @default.
• W1993273998 hasVolume "19" @default.
• W1993273998 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1993273998 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1993273998 magId "1993273998" @default.
• W1993273998 workType "article" @default.