Mednet Logo
HomeQuestion

Based on the SENTINA trial, is it reasonable to allow for axillary assessment via SLNB alone (without axillary dissection) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for an upfront clinically node-positive patient?

9
8 Answers
Mednet Member
Mednet Member
Radiation Oncology · Varian Medical Systems/Allegheny health network

False-negative is reduced to 5% or low with dual tracer, taking more than two sentinel nodes out and making sure bx positive node is clipped, localized, and taken out.

Register or Sign In to see full answer

Mednet Member
Mednet Member
Radiation Oncology · Duke University Medical Center

I agree with @Dr. First Last and @Dr. First Last, that SLNB is a reasonable way to evaluate the axilla following neoadjuvant CT for a clinically node-positive patient at diagnosis per the ACOSOG and Sentina trials and given the caveats mentioned. Perhaps a more significant question, however, is what...

Register or Sign In to see full answer

Mednet Member
Mednet Member
Radiation Oncology · University of Colorado School of Medicine

In a patient who has had a clinical complete nodal response to NAC, an SLNbx is the appropriate procedure. Based on data from SENTINA and ACOSOG Z1071, False Negative Rates (FNR) of <10% are achieved when blue and radiotracer dyes are used (controllable) or 3 or more SLNs are identified (we can't pr...

Register or Sign In to see full answer

Mednet Member
Mednet Member
Radiation Oncology · Washington University School of Medicine

Yes.

Register or Sign In to see full answer

Mednet Member
Mednet Member
Radiation Oncology · Swedish Covenant Hospital (Chicago IL)

For Node(+) that converts to SN (-) after NA CTX. If the tumor is ER neg I would treat high tangents and Supraclav, but not full axilla or IM. If ER (+), I would treat high tangent only, unless multiple (2 or more) nodes were positive.

Register or Sign In to see full answer

Mednet Member
Mednet Member
Radiation Oncology · Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center

@Dr. First Last, remember that up-front SLNB is not allowed in B51 (requires core needle or FNA), potentially due to concerns about high FNR from SENTINA, although I do not have the full protocol currently available to confirm or deny this from their introduction.

I believe Dr. @Dr. First Last may be...

Register or Sign In to see full answer

Mednet Member
Mednet Member
Radiation Oncology · Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center

To the points brought up by @Dr. First Last and @Dr. First Last, NSABP B51 will answer whether omitting RNI in patients who have gone from cN1 to ypN0 is oncologically safe. So, perhaps, in the future (based on trial results), patients will have cN1 disease, get neoadjuvant chemotherapy, convert to ...

Register or Sign In to see full answer

Mednet Member
Mednet Member
Radiation Oncology · Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center

Thank you all for the comments. Something I was getting at though, is whether we find in SNLB alone a sufficiently low FN rate if we have omission of RT arm in B51, since they need a pCR in the nodes. My bias, and of course, we will see the numbers for how many patients got ALMD plus/minus SLNB, wou...

Register or Sign In to see full answer

Based on the SENTINA trial, is it reasonable to allow for axillary assessment via SLNB alone (without axillary dissection) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for an upfront clinically node-positive patient? | Mednet