Two step procedures: sequels are never any good
Christian Sisó,Isabel T. Rubio
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/gs-24-229
2024-09-03
Gland Surgery
Abstract:Christian Sisó 1 , Isabel T. Rubio 2 1 Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Vall d'Hebron, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; 2 Breast Surgical Oncology Unit, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain Comment on: de Wild SR, Koppert LB, van Nijnatten TJA, et al . Systematic review of targeted axillary dissection in node-positive breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy: variation in type of marker and timing of placement. Br J Surg 2024;111:znae071. Keywords: Targeted axillary dissection (TAD); node-positive breast cancer; neoadjuvant therapy; axillary staging Submitted Jun 11, 2024. Accepted for publication Aug 07, 2024. Published online Aug 28, 2024. doi: 10.21037/gs-24-229 Several reports have been published since the initial use of targeted axillary dissection (TAD) after neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) in node positive breast cancer with different markers, identification rates (IRs) and false negative results (1-5). The use of TAD has shown to be a safe and accurate procedure for nodal staging reducing the rates of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), and consequently the morbidity of the procedure while preserving oncologic outcomes, mainly in patients with an axillary pathologic complete response (3,6). The procedure is now widely used, although still very heterogeneous in the method and with technical challenges in the identification of the marked node. In their comprehensive review, de Wild and colleagues examine the various techniques of TAD in node-positive breast cancer patients who have undergone NST (7). The authors provide valuable insights into the various markers and timing of placement used in TAD procedures, outlining the IRs and feasibility associated with different techniques. A systematic review of 51 studies, encompassing a total of 4,512 patients, reveals the considerable heterogeneity in TAD procedures. It also emphasizes that there is no single methodology that is demonstrably superior to another. These studies differ in the type of marker used [wire, 125 I-labelled seed, 99m Tc, (electro)magnetic/radiofrequency marker, black ink or US-visible clip], the necessity for a second preoperative marking of the targeted lymph node (TLN) (two-step procedure) and the strategy chosen for surgical removal of the TLN. Nevertheless, the present study corroborates the efficacy of the TAD procedure, demonstrating an overall pooled IR of the TLN at the time of surgery to be 96–97%. The occasional mismatch between sentinel lymph node (SLN) and TLN may explain why TAD is able to decrease the false negative rate (FNR) below 13%, rate found in earlier trials exploring the accuracy of sentinel LN biopsy (SLNB) alone in node-positive breast cancer patients following NST (8). The majority of the studies reported with the TAD procedure, particularly those at the outset, were based on the preoperative marking of the node by a wire or other marker (magnetic or radioactive seed, black ink, radar marker, etc.) of the node initially clipped with a marker before NST. The success of resecting the TLN was contingent upon the visibility of the clip inserted prior to NST. However, it should be noted that half of the studies included in the review (18 out of 41) excluded patients from the analysis in whom the TLN could not be located preoperatively by imaging. The range of TLN image identification values was found to be between 49% and 100%. This discrepancy is probably due to the use of different types of clips, some of them that cannot be found by ultrasound after NST. Exclusion of patients in whom the TLN was not visualized preoperatively may have contributed to the overestimation of the final IR of the TLN in cases where a second preoperative marking was required (two-step procedure). To enhance the IR of the TLN through imaging, the use of markers with a low risk of displacement and excellent long-term ultrasound visibility could be of value. The hydrophilic polymer gel-coated clip appears to be an optimal choice in this regard (9). Conversely, if a second marking is not necessary (one-step procedure), then, the number of procedures are reduced, improving patient's pathway. It is shown that the IR of TLN at the time of surgery varies considerably, with rates ranging from 62% to 100% and 71% to 100%, depending on whether the one-step or two-step procedure is considered. This variation is likely due to the learning curve associated with the novel surgical technique, which often requires the collaboration of multiple specialists (surgeons, radiologists, nuclear medicine specialists). Nevertheless, there is still a paucity of well-designed prospective studies to assess whether both models (one-step vs. two-step) are comparable. We agree with the authors that the use of wire local -Abstract Truncated-
surgery