To Örebro University

oru.seÖrebro University Publications
System disruptions
We are currently experiencing disruptions on the search portals due to high traffic. We are working to resolve the issue, you may temporarily encounter an error message.
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Axillary evaluation in ductal cancer in situ of the breast: challenging the diagnostic accuracy of clinical practice guidelines
Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; Breast Unit, Department of Surgery, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.
Oncoplastic Breast Unit, University College London Hospitals, London, UK.
Department of Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Breast Unit, San Raffaele University Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Show others and affiliations
2021 (English)In: British Journal of Surgery, ISSN 0007-1323, E-ISSN 1365-2168, Vol. 108, no 9, p. 1120-1125Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND: Staging of the axilla is not routine in ductal cancer in situ (DCIS) although invasive cancer is observed in 20-25 per cent of patients at final pathology. Upfront sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) is advocated in clinical practice guidelines in certain situations. These include expected challenges in subsequent SLN detection and when the risk for invasion is high. Clinical practice guidelines are, however, inconsistent and lead to considerable practice variability.

METHODS: Clinical practice guidelines for upfront SLND in DCIS were identified and applied to patients included in the prospective SentiNot study. These patients were evaluated by six independent, blinded raters. Agreement statistics were performed to assess agreement and concordance. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed, to assess guideline accuracy in identifying patients with underlying invasion.

RESULTS: Eight guidelines with relevant recommendations were identified. Interobserver agreement varied greatly (kappa: 0.23-0.9) and the interpretation as to whether SLND should be performed ranged from 40-90 per cent and with varying concordance (32-88 per cent). The diagnostic accuracy was low with area under the curve ranging from 0.45 to 0.55. Fifty to 90 per cent of patients with pure DCIS would undergo unnecessary SLNB, whereas 10-50 per cent of patients with invasion were not identified as 'high risk'. Agreement across guidelines was low (kappa = 0.24), meaning that different patients had a similar risk of being treated inaccurately.

CONCLUSION: Available guidelines are inaccurate in identifying patients with DCIS who would benefit from upfront SLNB. Guideline refinement with detailed preoperative work-up and novel techniques for SLND identification could address this challenge and avoid overtreatment.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Oxford University Press, 2021. Vol. 108, no 9, p. 1120-1125
National Category
Cancer and Oncology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-92179DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znab149ISI: 000776252800046PubMedID: 34089583Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85117739896OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-92179DiVA, id: diva2:1561518
Note

Funding agency:

Swedish Breast Cancer Association (Bröstcancerförbundet)

Uppsala University

Available from: 2021-06-07 Created: 2021-06-07 Last updated: 2022-04-19Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Valachis, Antonis

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Valachis, Antonis
By organisation
School of Medical SciencesÖrebro University Hospital
In the same journal
British Journal of Surgery
Cancer and Oncology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 71 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf