16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Abstract GS4-03: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for the intergroup sentinel mamma study (INSEMA, GBG75, ABCSG43): Persistent impact of axillary surgery on arm and breast symptoms in early breast cancer

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: Despite increasing evidence disfavoring axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) for locoregional control, it remains part of guidelines for breast cancer (BC) treatment. In an attempt to re-evaluate standard local therapy, the INSEMA trial was designed to assess non-inferiority of avoiding sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or completion ALND (cALND) in early-stage clinically node-negative BC patients. Here we present PROs from the INSEMA trial. Methods: INSEMA (NCT02466737) investigates non-inferiority of invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) after no axillary surgical staging versus SLNB (first randomization 1:4) in patients with clinically node-negative BC (tumor size ≤5 cm) and primary breast-conserving surgery (BCS). In case of pN1a(sn) in the SLNB arm, patients underwent a second randomization to either SLNB alone or cALND (1:1). PROs were assessed at baseline (pre-surgery) and at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months after final axillary surgery using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and its breast cancer (BR23) module. Higher scores of C30 and BR23 (range 0-100) indicate better functioning and global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QoL) or worse symptom severity, respectively. The QoL scores were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test based on the safety set. Results: Between September 2015 and April 2019, 5,502 patients were recruited for the 1st randomization and 5,173 of them were included in the intent-to-treat set (4,138 SLNB vs 1,035 no SLNB). Patient and tumor characteristics were well-balanced between treatment arms. Median age at diagnosis was 62.0 years (range 24.0 - 89.0). Overall, recruited patients presented with low-risk BC marked by 85.6% clinically stage T1, 98.5% hormone-receptor positivity, 2.4% HER2-positivity, and 3.7% G3 tumors. The majority (73.5%) had an invasive carcinoma of no special type (72.8% in SLNB vs 76.0% in no SLNB arm) and 87.0% had Ki-67 ≤ 20%. Questionnaire completion response remained high throughout the trial: n=3,915 (75.7%) returned questionnaires at 1 month after final axillary surgery, n=3,938 (76.1%) at 3 months, n=4,024 (77.8%) at 6 months, n=3,907 (75.5%) at 12 months, and n=3,637 (70.3%) at 18 months. All QoL baseline parameters regarding GHS, functional scales, and symptom scales/items were well-balanced between arms (total 4,117 SLNB vs 1,056 no SLNB as treated; 270 of 4,117 received cALND). There were significant differences for the BRBS (breast symptoms) and BRAS (arm symptoms) scores favoring the no SLNB group in all post-baseline assessments Patients in the SLNB group showed persistent higher scores for BRAS (differences in mean values ≥5.0 points at all times of assessment) including pain, arm swelling, and impaired mobility in all postoperative visits with the highest difference at 1 month after final surgery (mean scores, 23.6 vs. 12.8, p<0.001). Differences between treatment arms regarding BRBS including pain, breast swelling, hypersensitivity, and other skin problems showed a smaller range, but still a continuous trend for improved QoL in the no SLNB arm. Scoring of the QLQ-C30 questionnaire revealed no relevant differences between the treatment groups postoperatively. Conclusions: This is one of the first randomized trials investigating the omission of SLNB in clinically node-negative patients and the first to report QoL data. Patients with no SLNB benefitted regarding arm symptoms/functioning while no relevant differences in other QoL scales were seen. Data for the primary outcome of the study (iDFS) are expected for the end of 2024.

          Citation Format: Bernd Gerber, Angrit Stachs, Kristina Veselinovic, Silke Polata, Thomas Müller, Thorsten Kühn, Jörg Heil, Beyhan Ataseven, Roland Reitsamer, Guido Hildebrandt, Michael Knauer, Michael Golatta, Andrea Stefek, Dirk-Michael Zahm, Marc Thill, Valentina Nekljudova, David Krug, Fenja Seither, Sibylle Loibl, Toralf Reimer. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for the intergroup sentinel mamma study (INSEMA, GBG75, ABCSG43): Persistent impact of axillary surgery on arm and breast symptoms in early breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS4-03.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Cancer Research
          American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
          0008-5472
          1538-7445
          February 15 2022
          February 15 2022
          : 82
          : 4_Supplement
          : GS4-03
          Affiliations
          [1 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany
          [2 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany
          [3 ]Breast Center, Evangelisches Waldkrankenhaus Spandau, Berlin, Germany
          [4 ]Women’s Hospital, Klinikum Hanau GmbH, Hanau, Germany
          [5 ]Women’s Hospital, Klinikum Esslingen, Esslingen, Germany
          [6 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Universitäsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
          [7 ]Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany
          [8 ]Breast Center, Gemeinnützige Salzburger Landeskliniken Betriebsgesellschaft, Salzburg, Austria
          [9 ]Department of Radiotherapy, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany
          [10 ]Brustzentrum Ost, St. Gallen, Switzerland
          [11 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
          [12 ]Women’s Hospital, Johanniter-Krankenhaus Stendal, Stendal, Germany
          [13 ]Breast Center, SRH Waldklinikum Gera, Gera, Germany
          [14 ]Breast Center, AGAPLESION Markus Krankenhaus, Frankfurt, Germany
          [15 ]German Breast Group, Neu-Isenburg, Germany
          [16 ]Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
          Article
          10.1158/1538-7445.SABCS21-GS4-03
          eac8329b-004d-4d31-90c9-13ee87590bcf
          © 2022
          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article

          scite_
          0
          0
          0
          0
          Smart Citations
          0
          0
          0
          0
          Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
          View Citations

          See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

          scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

          Similar content75

          Cited by4