Surgery
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%.
- Prior observational series suggested PRO advantage with pre-pectoral IBBR; PREPEC is first large RCT to test this directly
| Arm | LS 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) |
| Difference | 4.8 (1.0-8.7), p=0.01 |
+2 more figures
| Arm | Crude % at 24 mo (n/N) | Adj diff (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-pectoral IBBR | 21.1% (41/194) | 5.7% (-2.4 to 13.8) |
| Sub-pectoral IBBR | 14.5% (27/186) | ref |
4 details
- π International RCT; nipple-sparing or skin-sparing mastectomy; therapeutic + risk-reduction setting
- π 1Β° EP: BREAST-Q physical well-being (chest) at 24 months; LS mean from linear mixed model; longitudinal completion 83-95%
CONSORT flow
- β οΈ Main secondary safety EP missed non-inferiority: pre-pectoral had higher unplanned implant loss/replacement
- β οΈ 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?
π Sources Β· π¦ 1 tweet
π Surgical de-escalation of implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or prevention: The international randomized phase I|I
— Elisabetta Bonzano MD, PhD (@to_be_elizabeth) May 30, 2026
PREPEC trial (ΠΠ BC-02).
Presented by Walter Weber β¨#ASCO26 @OncoAlert #OncoAlertAF #BreastCancer pic.twitter.com/WE20JcBQG0
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 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
7 details
- π Phase 3 NI RCT, N=2766 enrolled, 2540 per-protocol; median f/u 46.8mo (range 1.5-94.5)
- π Extends Z0011 eligibility: includes mastectomy, T3 tumors, extracapsular extension, male pts
- π Nodal RT administered in 89.9% SNB-only group, 88.4% ALND group
- π 2Β° EP (RFS): 5yr 89.7% (95% CI 87.5-91.9) SNB-only vs 88.7% (95% CI 86.3-91.1) ALND
- π Country-adjusted HR 0.89 (95% CI 0.66-1.19); noninferiority p<0.001 (upper CI 1.19 below margin 1.44)
- β οΈ 1Β° EP (OS) not yet reported; only prespecified secondary RFS analysis shown here
- β οΈ 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
π Sources Β· π 1 paper
Abstract
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.
- Emerging: targeted/sentinel LND guided by PSMA PET-positive nodes vs full-template ePLND
+2 more figures
7 details
- π Intermediate risk: PLND safely omittable if PSMA PET negative; missed LN likely small, equally missed by ePLND
- π High-risk: individual decision; PSMA PET negative β consider post-op pelvic RT over ePLND to limit lymphedema
- π Yaxley et al. (BJUI 2019), n=1253: 47.7% of LN mets outside ePLND anatomic template
- π PSMA PET NPV ~96% for LNI at primary staging
- β οΈ RCTs show no consistent BCR improvement attributable to routine ePLND
- β οΈ No Level 1 evidence for significant oncological benefit from ePLND (Roberts et al., PCAN 2024)
- β οΈ 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
π Sources Β· π¦ 1 tweet
At #AUA2026, the message was clear:β°π ePLND provides staging information, but its therapeutic benefit remains uncertain.β°π RCTs have not shown consistent improvements in BCR outcomes.β°π PSMA PET/CT has a high NPV (~96%) and may safely avoid unnecessary PLND inβ¦ pic.twitter.com/7vJFe2hG77
— DR CARVAJAL (@RomanCarvajal) May 17, 2026