onc brain

About Β· curated by Nick Boehling, MD Β· @nb2276

Surgery

3 studies Subscribe via RSS β†’

PREPEC

ForNipple-sparing or skin-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk re

TL;DRBREAST-Q chest score 79.2 vs 74.3 (diff 4.8, p=0.01) favoring pre-pectoral IBBR; implant loss 21% vs 15%.

vs leading data
  • Prior observational series suggested PRO advantage with pre-pectoral IBBR; PREPEC is first large RCT to test this directly

Surgery Phase 2 trial Confirmatory

PREPEC
ArmLS mean (95% CI) at 24 mo
Pre-pectoral IBBR (N=191)79.2 (75.5-82.8)
Sub-pectoral IBBR (N=189)74.3 (70.7-78.0)
Difference4.8 (1.0-8.7), p=0.01
+2 more figures
PREPEC
ArmCrude % at 24 mo (n/N)Adj diff (95% CI)
Pre-pectoral IBBR21.1% (41/194)5.7% (-2.4 to 13.8)
Sub-pectoral IBBR14.5% (27/186)ref
PREPEC
4 details
  • πŸ” International RCT; nipple-sparing or skin-sparing mastectomy; therapeutic + risk-reduction setting
  • πŸ” 1Β° EP: BREAST-Q physical well-being (chest) at 24 months; LS mean from linear mixed model; longitudinal completion 83-95%
CONSORT flow
Randomized 380
↓
Pre-pectoral IBBR
allocated 194
analyzed 191
Sub-pectoral IBBR
allocated 186
analyzed 189
  • ⚠️ Main secondary safety EP missed non-inferiority: pre-pectoral had higher unplanned implant loss/replacement
  • ⚠️ 4.8-point BREAST-Q difference is modest; minimum clinically important difference for this subscale is debated
  • Does PRO benefit persist beyond 24 months?
  • Which pts tolerate higher implant failure risk of pre-pectoral?
  • Phase III confirmation warranted before routine adoption?
πŸ“š Sources Β· 🐦 1 tweet

SENOMAC NCT02240472

ForcN0 breast cancer, T1-T3, 1-2 SN macrometastases, BCT or mastectomy

TL;DR5yr RFS 89.7% vs 88.7%, HR 0.89: SNB alone noninferior to ALND in cN0 breast cancer with 1-2 SN macrometastases.

vs leading data
  • vs ACOSOG Z0011: SENOMAC resolves Z0011's power deficit, uncertain RT volumes, and short f/u in one trial
  • vs AMAROS: AMAROS replaced ALND with axillary RT; SENOMAC omits axillary-directed treatment entirely, relying on regional nodal RT

Surgery Curative Phase 3 RCT Confirmatory

7 details
  • πŸ” Phase 3 NI RCT, N=2766 enrolled, 2540 per-protocol; median f/u 46.8mo (range 1.5-94.5)
  • πŸ” Extends Z0011 eligibility: includes mastectomy, T3 tumors, extracapsular extension, male pts
  • πŸ” Nodal RT administered in 89.9% SNB-only group, 88.4% ALND group
  • πŸ“Š 2Β° EP (RFS): 5yr 89.7% (95% CI 87.5-91.9) SNB-only vs 88.7% (95% CI 86.3-91.1) ALND
  • πŸ“ Country-adjusted HR 0.89 (95% CI 0.66-1.19); noninferiority p<0.001 (upper CI 1.19 below margin 1.44)
  • ⚠️ 1Β° EP (OS) not yet reported; only prespecified secondary RFS analysis shown here
  • ⚠️ Near-universal nodal RT in both arms: noninferiority may not hold where nodal RT is routinely omitted
  • Primary OS endpoint results still pending
  • Generalizability in settings where nodal RT is not routinely administered
  • Optimal RT volumes (high-tangent vs dedicated nodal fields) in SNB-only pts
πŸ“š Sources Β· πŸ“„ 1 paper
πŸ“„ PAPER de Boniface, Jana; Filtenborg Tvedskov, Tove; RydΓ©n, Lisa et al. Β· New England Journal of Medicine (2024-04)
Omitting Axillary Dissection in Breast Cancer with Sentinel-Node Metastases
Abstract
BACKGROUND<br/>Trials evaluating the omission of completion axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer and sentinel-lymph-node metastases have been compromised by limited statistical power, uncertain nodal radiotherapy target volumes, and a scarcity of data on relevant clinical subgroups.<br/>METHODS<br/>We conducted a noninferiority trial in which patients with clinically node-negative primary T1 to T3 breast cancer (tumor size, T1, ≀20 mm; T2, 21 to 50 mm; and T3, >50 mm in the largest dimension) with one or two sentinel-node macrometastases (metastasis size, >2 mm in the largest dimension) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to completion axillary-lymph-node dissection or its omission (sentinel-node biopsy only). Adjuvant treatment and radiation therapy were used in accordance with national guidelines. The primary end point was overall survival. We report here the per-protocol and modified intention-to-treat analyses of the prespecified secondary end point of recurrence-free survival. To show noninferiority of sentinel-node biopsy only, the upper boundary of the confidence interval for the hazard ratio for recurrence or death had to be below 1.44.<br/>RESULTS<br/>Between January 2015 and December 2021, a total of 2766 patients were enrolled across five countries. The per-protocol population included 2540 patients, of whom 1335 were assigned to undergo sentinel-node biopsy only and 1205 to undergo completion axillary-lymph-node dissection (dissection group). Radiation therapy including nodal target volumes was administered to 1192 of 1326 patients (89.9%) in the sentinel-node biopsy–only group and to 1058 of 1197 (88.4%) in the dissection group. The median follow-up was 46.8 months (range, 1.5 to 94.5). Overall, 191 patients had recurrence or died. The estimated 5-year recurrence-free survival was 89.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.5 to 91.9) in the sentinel-node biopsy–only group and 88.7% (95% CI, 86.3 to 91.1) in the dissection group, with a country-adjusted hazard ratio for recurrence or death of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.19), which was significantly (P<0.001) below the prespecified noninferiority margin.<br/>CONCLUSIONS<br/>The omission of completion axillary-lymph-node dissection was noninferior to the more extensive surgery in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer who had sentinel-node macrometastases, most of whom received nodal radiation therapy. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; SENOMAC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02240472.)

ePLND vs PSMA PET staging in prostate cancer (AUA 2026)

ForLocalized prostate cancer, intermediate to high risk, primary staging pre-RP

TL;DR47.7% of LN mets outside ePLND template; PSMA PET NPV ~96%; RCTs no consistent BCR benefit from routine dissection.

vs leading data
  • Emerging: targeted/sentinel LND guided by PSMA PET-positive nodes vs full-template ePLND

Surgery Curative Challenges SOC

Yaxley et al. (BJUI 2019): 1253 men primary staging Ga-PSMA PET/CT; 47.7% of LN mets outside ePLND template.
Yaxley et al. (BJUI 2019): 1253 men primary staging Ga-PSMA PET/CT; 47.7% of LN mets outside ePLND template.
+2 more figures
Lower limb lymphedema: RP+PLND 0-14%, pelvic LN RT 0-9%, PLND+salvage RT 19-29%; DVT/PE risk 6-10x with PLND (Tyritzis, n=3544).
Lower limb lymphedema: RP+PLND 0-14%, pelvic LN RT 0-9%, PLND+salvage RT 19-29%; DVT/PE risk 6-10x with PLND (Tyritzis, n=3544).
ePLND vs PSMA PET staging in prostate cancer (AUA 2026)
7 details
  • πŸ” Intermediate risk: PLND safely omittable if PSMA PET negative; missed LN likely small, equally missed by ePLND
  • πŸ” High-risk: individual decision; PSMA PET negative β†’ consider post-op pelvic RT over ePLND to limit lymphedema
  • πŸ“Š Yaxley et al. (BJUI 2019), n=1253: 47.7% of LN mets outside ePLND anatomic template
  • πŸ“Š PSMA PET NPV ~96% for LNI at primary staging
  • ⚠️ RCTs show no consistent BCR improvement attributable to routine ePLND
  • ⚠️ No Level 1 evidence for significant oncological benefit from ePLND (Roberts et al., PCAN 2024)
  • ⚠️ PLND morbidity (Clinckaert systematic review; Tyritzis J Urol 2015, n=3544)
    • Lower limb lymphedema: 0-14% RP+PLND; 0-9% pelvic LN RT; 19-29% PLND + salvage pelvic RT
    • DVT/PE risk 6-10x increased with PLND vs no PLND
  • Which high-risk pts still benefit from ePLND over PSMA PET-guided approach?
  • Role of targeted/sentinel LND using PSMA PET-positive nodes vs full-template ePLND
  • Long-term BCR/MFS outcomes when ePLND omitted based on negative PSMA PET
πŸ“š Sources Β· 🐦 1 tweet