Bethesda Spital

BackgroundTailored axillary surgery (TAS) is a novel surgical concept for clinical node-positive breast cancer. It consists of the removal of the sentinel lymph nodes (LNs), as well as palpably suspicious nodes. The TAS technique can be utilized in both the upfront and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) setting. This study assessed whether/how imaging-guided localization (IGL) influenced TAS.Patients and MethodsThis was a prospective observational cohort study preplanned in the randomized phase-III OPBC-03/TAXIS trial. IGL was performed at the surgeon’s discretion for targeted removal of LNs during TAS. Immediate back-up axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) followed TAS according to TAXIS randomization.ResultsFive-hundred patients were included from 44 breast centers in six countries, 151 (30.2%) of whom underwent NACT. IGL was performed in 84.4% of all patients, with significant variation by country (77.6–100%, p < 0.001). No difference in the median number of removed (5 vs. 4, p = 0.3) and positive (2 vs. 2, p = 0.6) LNs by use of IGL was noted. The number of LNs removed during TAS with IGL remained stable over time (p = 0.8), but decreased significantly without IGL, from six (IQR 4–6) in 2019 to four (IQR 3–4) in 2022 (p = 0.015). An ALND was performed in 249 patients, removing another 12 (IQR 9–17) LNs, in which a median number of 1 (IQR 0–4) was positive. There was no significant difference in residual nodal disease after TAS with or without IGL (68.0% vs. 57.6%, p = 0.2).ConclusionsIGL did not significantly change either the performance of TAS or the volume of residual nodal tumor burden.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03513614.

The role of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) to determine nodal burden to inform systemic therapy recommendations in patients with clinically node (cN)-positive breast cancer (BC) is currently unknown. To address the association of ALND with systemic therapy in cN-positive BC in the upfront surgery setting and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). This was a prospective, observational, cohort study conducted from August 2018 to June 2022. This was a preplanned study within the phase 3 randomized clinical OPBC-03/TAXIS trial. Included were patients with confirmed cN-positive BC from 44 private, public, and academic breast centers in 6 European countries. After NACT, residual nodal disease was mandatory, and a minimum follow-up of 2 months was required. All patients underwent tailored axillary surgery (TAS) followed by ALND or axillary radiotherapy (ART) according to TAXIS randomization. TAS removed suspicious palpable and sentinel nodes, whereas imaging-guidance was optional. Systemic therapy recommendations were at the discretion of the local investigators. A total of 500 patients (median [IQR] age, 57 [48-69] years; 487 female [97.4%]) were included in the study. In the upfront surgery setting, 296 of 335 patients (88.4%) had hormone receptor (HR)-positive and Erb-B2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (ERBB2; formerly HER2 or HER2/neu)-negative disease: 145 (49.0%) underwent ART, and 151 (51.0%) underwent ALND. The median (IQR) number of removed positive lymph nodes without ALND was 3 (1-4) nodes compared with 4 (2-9) nodes with ALND. There was no association of ALND with the proportion of patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy (81 of 145 [55.9%] vs 91 of 151 [60.3%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.19-2.67) and type of systemic therapy. Of 151 patients with NACT, 74 (51.0%) underwent ART, and 77 (49.0%) underwent ALND. The ratio of removed to positive nodes was a median (IQR) of 4 (3-7) nodes to 2 (1-3) nodes and 15 (12-19) nodes to 2 (1-5) nodes in the ART and ALND groups, respectively. There was no observed association of ALND with the proportion of patients undergoing postneoadjuvant systemic therapy (57 of 74 [77.0%] vs 55 of 77 [71.4%]; aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.43-1.70), type of postneoadjuvant chemotherapy (eg, capecitabine: 10 of 74 [13.5%] vs 10 of 77 [13.0%]; trastuzumab emtansine-DM1: 9 of 74 [12.2%] vs 11 of 77 [14.3%]), or endocrine therapy (eg, aromatase inhibitors: 41 of 74 [55.4%] vs 36 of 77 [46.8%]; tamoxifen: 8 of 74 [10.8%] vs 6 of 77 [7.8%]). Results of this cohort study suggest that patients without ALND were significantly understaged. However, ALND did not inform systemic therapy recommendations.

Aim This completely revised interdisciplinary S2k-guideline on the diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up care of female patients with urinary incontinence (AWMF registry number: 015-091) was published in December 2021. This guideline combines and summarizes earlier guidelines such as "Female stress urinary incontinence," "Female urge incontinence" and "Use of Ultrasonography in Urogynecological Diagnostics" for the first time. The guideline was coordinated by the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, DGGG) and the Working Group for Urogynecology and Plastic Pelvic Floor Reconstruction (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Urogynäkologie und plastische Beckenbodenrekonstruktion e. V., AGUB). Methods This S2k-guideline was developed using a structured consensus process involving representative members from different medical specialties and was commissioned by the Guidelines Commission of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG. The guideline is based on the current version of the guideline "Urinary Incontinence in Adults" published by the European Association of Urology (EAU). Country-specific items associated with the respective healthcare systems in Germany, Austria and Switzerland were also incorporated. Recommendations The short version of this guideline consists of recommendations and statements on the epidemiology, etiology, classification, symptoms, diagnostics, and treatment of female patients with urinary incontinence. Specific solutions for the diagnostic workup and appropriate conservative and medical therapies for uncomplicated and complication urinary incontinence are discussed.

BackgroundDoxycycline is often used for treating COVID-19 respiratory symptoms in the community despite an absence of evidence from clinical trials to support its use. We aimed to assess the efficacy of doxycycline to treat suspected COVID-19 in the community among people at high risk of adverse outcomes.MethodsWe did a national, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised trial of interventions against COVID-19 in older people (PRINCIPLE) across primary care centres in the UK. We included people aged 65 years or older, or 50 years or older with comorbidities (weakened immune system, heart disease, hypertension, asthma or lung disease, diabetes, mild hepatic impairment, stroke or neurological problem, and self-reported obesity or body-mass index of 35 kg/m2 or greater), who had been unwell (for ≤14 days) with suspected COVID-19 or a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. Participants were randomly assigned using response adaptive randomisation to usual care only, usual care plus oral doxycycline (200 mg on day 1, then 100 mg once daily for the following 6 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The interventions reported in this manuscript are usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only; evaluations of other interventions in this platform trial are ongoing. The coprimary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation or death related to COVID-19, both measured over 28 days from randomisation and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ISRCTN, 86534580.FindingsThe trial opened on April 2, 2020. Randomisation to doxycycline began on July 24, 2020, and was stopped on Dec 14, 2020, because the prespecified futility criterion was met; 2689 participants were enrolled and randomised between these dates. Of these, 2508 (93·3%) participants contributed follow-up data and were included in the primary analysis: 780 (31·1%) in the usual care plus doxycycline group, 948 in the usual care only group (37·8%), and 780 (31·1%) in the usual care plus other interventions group. Among the 1792 participants randomly assigned to the usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only groups, the mean age was 61·1 years (SD 7·9); 999 (55·7%) participants were female and 790 (44·1%) were male. In the primary analysis model, there was little evidence of difference in median time to first self-reported recovery between the usual care plus doxycycline group and the usual care only group (9·6 [95% Bayesian Credible Interval [BCI] 8·3 to 11·0] days vs 10·1 [8·7 to 11·7] days, hazard ratio 1·04 [95% BCI 0·93 to 1·17]). The estimated benefit in median time to first self-reported recovery was 0·5 days [95% BCI −0·99 to 2·04] and the probability of a clinically meaningful benefit (defined as ≥1·5 days) was 0·10. Hospitalisation or death related to COVID-19 occurred in 41 (crude percentage 5·3%) participants in the usual care plus doxycycline group and 43 (4·5%) in the usual care only group (estimated absolute percentage difference −0·5% [95% BCI −2·6 to 1·4]); there were five deaths (0·6%) in the usual care plus doxycycline group and two (0·2%) in the usual care only group.InterpretationIn patients with suspected COVID-19 in the community in the UK, who were at high risk of adverse outcomes, treatment with doxycycline was not associated with clinically meaningful reductions in time to recovery or hospital admissions or deaths related to COVID-19, and should not be used as a routine treatment for COVID-19.FundingUK Research and Innovation, Department of Health and Social Care, National Institute for Health Research.