ObjectiveTo assess the long-term safety of no axillary clearance in elderly patients with breast cancer and nonpalpable axillary nodes.BackgroundLymph node evaluation in elderly patients with early breast cancer and clinically negative axillary nodes is controversial. Our randomized trial with 5-year follow-up showed no breast cancer mortality advantage for axillary clearance compared with observation in older patients with T1N0 disease.MethodsWe further investigated axillary treatment in a retrospective analysis of 671 consecutive patients, aged ≥70 years, with operable breast cancer and a clinically clear axilla, treated between 1987 and 1992; 172 received and 499 did not receive axillary dissection; 20 mg/day tamoxifen was prescribed for at least 2 years. We used multivariable analysis to take account of the lack of randomization.ResultsAfter median follow-up of 15 years (interquartile range 14–17 years) there was no significant difference in breast cancer mortality between the axillary and no axillary clearance groups. Crude cumulative 15-year incidence of axillary disease in the no axillary dissection group was low: 5.8% overall and 3.7% for pT1 patients.ConclusionsElderly patients with early breast cancer and clinically negative nodes did not benefit in terms of breast cancer mortality from immediate axillary dissection in this nonrandomized study. Sentinel node biopsy could also be foregone due to the very low cumulative incidence of axillary disease in this age group. Axillary dissection should be restricted to the small number of patients who later develop overt axillary disease.
AbstractBackgroundMulti-morbidity and polypharmacy increase the risk of non-trivial adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in older people during hospitalization. Despite this, there are no established interventions for hospital-acquired ADR prevention.MethodsWe undertook a pragmatic, multi-national, parallel arm prospective randomized open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) controlled trial enrolling patients at six European medical centres. We randomized 1,537 older medical and surgical patients with multi-morbidity and polypharmacy on admission in a 1:1 ratio to SENATOR software-guided medication optimization plus standard care (intervention, n = 772, mean number of daily medications = 9.34) or standard care alone (control, n = 765, mean number of daily medications = 9.23) using block randomization stratified by site and admission type. Attending clinicians in the intervention arm received SENATOR-generated advice at a single time point with recommendations they could choose to adopt or not. The primary endpoint was occurrence of probable or certain ADRs within 14 days of randomization. Secondary endpoints were primary endpoint derivatives; tertiary endpoints included all-cause mortality, re-hospitalization, composite healthcare utilization and health-related quality of life.ResultsFor the primary endpoint, there was no difference between the intervention and control groups (24.5 vs. 24.8%; OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.77–1.24; P = 0.88). Similarly, with secondary and tertiary endpoints, there were no significant differences. Among attending clinicians in the intervention group, implementation of SENATOR software-generated medication advice points was poor (~15%).ConclusionsIn this trial, uptake of software-generated medication advice to minimize ADRs was poor and did not reduce ADR incidence during index hospitalization.
Older patients with T1N0 breast cancer can be treated by conservative breast surgery and no axillary dissection without adversely affecting breast cancer mortality or overall survival. The very low cumulative incidence of axillary events suggests that even sentinel node biopsy is unnecessary in these patients. Axillary dissection should be reserved for the small proportion of patients who later develop overt axillary disease.
Older patients with early breast cancer and a clinically clear axilla treated by conservative surgery, postoperative radiotherapy, and adjuvant tamoxifen do not benefit from axillary dissection. This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ID NCT00002720).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.