onc brain

About · curated by Nick Boehling, MD · @nb2276

Surgery

2 studies Subscribe via RSS →

Confirmatory

PREPEC

ForSkin/nipple-sparing mastectomy, implant reconstruction, prevention/therapeutic

Physical well-being (chest), BREAST-Q, 24mo surrogate

Δ4.8 pts (79.2 vs 74.3)

95% CI 1.0-8.7, p=0.01; 24mo, pre- vs sub-pectoral

TL;DRPre-pectoral implant improved 2yr chest well-being +4.8 pts (BREAST-Q, p=0.01) vs sub-pectoral, but more unplanned implant loss (21% vs 15%).

Monday clinic

In pts undergoing skin- or nipple-sparing mastectomy (therapeutic or risk-reducing) who choose implant reconstruction, this supports pre-pectoral placement for better 2yr patient-reported chest well-being, weighed against numerically higher unplanned implant loss (21% vs 15%).

PREPEC
Endpoint (24mo)Pre-pectoral (N=191)Sub-pectoral (N=189)Difference
Physical well-being, chest (BREAST-Q)79.2 (75.5-82.8)74.3 (70.7-78.0)4.8 (1.0-8.7), p=0.01
+1 more figure
PREPEC
Unplanned implant loss/replacement (24mo)Pre-pectoralSub-pectoralAdj. difference (95% CI)
Crude % (n/N)21.1% (41/194)14.5% (27/186)5.7% (-2.4 to 13.8)
8 details 3 trials watching

International randomized phase 3 trial (OPBC-02): pre- vs sub-pectoral implant reconstruction after skin- or nipple-sparing mastectomy. Open-label; patient-reported primary endpoint analyzed by multiple imputation and linear mixed models.

Women undergoing skin- or nipple-sparing mastectomy for cancer treatment or risk reduction, opting for implant reconstruction. Primary QoL analysis N=191 pre- vs 189 sub-pectoral.

Primary: long-term patient-reported physical well-being (chest), BREAST-Q, at 24 months. Main secondary safety: unplanned loss or replacement of expander/implant.

BREAST-Q chest well-being 79.2 vs 74.3 at 24mo, difference 4.8 (95% CI 1.0-8.7, p=0.01), favoring pre-pectoral. Longitudinal completion 83-95%.

Point estimate showed more implant loss with pre-pectoral (21.1% vs 14.5%), failing the trial's non-inferiority safety hypothesis; the adjusted-difference 95% CI (-2.4 to 13.8) crosses zero.

women choosing implant-based reconstruction after skin- or nipple-sparing mastectomy, therapeutic or risk-reducing
Does not represent autologous (flap) reconstruction or non-implant approaches.

Open-label with a patient-reported primary endpoint, so awareness of implant type could bias PROs. The 4.8-point gain is significant but modest, and the safety signal trended against pre-pectoral.

A major RCT in an area of genuine equipoise. It supports pre-pectoral for patient-reported chest well-being while flagging a higher implant-loss signal, so the choice reads as a real trade-off, not a clean win.

Randomized phase 3, primary endpoint met, but a modest patient-reported surrogate and an unmet non-inferiority safety endpoint keep it short of practice-changing.

📚 Sources · 🐦 1 tweet
Confirmatory

SENOMAC NCT02240472

ForcN0 T1-T3 breast cancer, 1-2 sentinel-node macrometastases

Recurrence-free survival (secondary) surrogate

HR 0.89

95% CI 0.66-1.19, NI met (margin 1.44); primary OS not yet reported

TL;DR5-yr RFS 89.7% vs 88.7%, HR 0.89 (0.66-1.19): omitting completion ALND noninferior, with nodal RT given in ~90% of both arms.

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

Nodal RT with nodal target volumes reached ~90% in both arms (89.9% vs 88.4%), so SENOMAC validates dropping completion ALND within regional nodal irradiation, not omitting axillary treatment. For the RT reader it positions nodal RT as the axillary treatment when SNB shows 1-2 macromets; it does not test omitting both surgery and RT.

8 details 4 trials watching

Phase 3 noninferiority RCT, 1:1, N=2766 enrolled (2540 per-protocol), 67 sites across 5 countries; median follow-up 46.8 mo. Reports the prespecified secondary RFS; primary OS not yet reported.

cN0 T1-T3 breast cancer with 1-2 sentinel-node macrometastases (>2mm). Extends eligibility beyond Z0011 to mastectomy, T3, extracapsular extension, and men.

Nodal RT including nodal target volumes reached 89.9% (SNB-only) and 88.4% (cALND). ALND omission was therefore tested within regional nodal irradiation, not as omission of axillary treatment.

Primary: overall survival (not reported in source). This analysis: prespecified secondary recurrence-free survival, per-protocol and modified ITT.

Noninferiority met: the upper confidence bound stayed below the prespecified 1.44 margin (P<0.001) across 191 recurrence-or-death events.

EndpointSNB onlycALND
5-yr RFS89.7% (87.5-91.9)88.7% (86.3-91.1)
HR recurrence/death0.89 (0.66-1.19)ref

Consistent with Z0011 (breast-conserving + whole-breast RT) and AMAROS (axillary RT replacing ALND), both null for ALND benefit at 10 yr. SENOMAC adds the macromet-only, mastectomy/T3/ECE/male groups in a larger cohort.

cN0 T1-T3 breast cancer with 1-2 sentinel-node macrometastases receiving guideline adjuvant therapy and nodal RT
Does not represent clinically node-positive disease, 3+ positive nodes, or patients not receiving nodal radiotherapy.

This is the secondary RFS endpoint, not the OS primary, at a 46.8-mo median follow-up short for ER+ biology. The HR 1.44 noninferiority margin is generous, and ~90% nodal RT confounds attribution to surgical omission alone.

Randomised phase 3 noninferiority; prespecified secondary RFS met, extends Z0011/AMAROS de-escalation to mastectomy/T3/ECE/men. Primary OS not yet reported.

In cN0 breast cancer with 1-2 sentinel-node macrometastases who receive regional nodal RT, this supports omitting completion ALND, including mastectomy, T3, extracapsular extension, and men; it does not extend to patients treated without nodal radiotherapy.

📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
📄 PAPER de Boniface, Jana; Filtenborg Tvedskov, Tove; Rydén, Lisa et al. · New England Journal of Medicine (2024-04)
Omitting Axillary Dissection in Breast Cancer with Sentinel-Node Metastases