Introduction: Reoperation after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) could be proposed for positive or close margins. Reoperation type, re-excision or mastectomy, depends on several factors in relation to patient’s and tumor’s characteristics. We have analyzed our breast cancer (BC) database in order to determine second and third attempts for BCS and mastectomy rates, as well as associated factors for type of surgery. Methods: All patients with BCS between 1995 and 2017 were included. Patient’s characteristics, pathologic results, and treatments were analyzed. Reoperation rate, type of reoperation, second reoperation, and associated factors of reoperation, mastectomy, and third intervention were determined. Three periods were determined: P1–P3. Results: We analyzed 10,761 patients: 1,161 with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and 9,600 with invasive BC. The reoperation rate was 41.4% for DCIS and 28.0% for invasive BC. Using multivariate analysis, we identified tumor size >20 mm as being a risk factor for reoperation, whereas age >50 years, P2–3, and some localization decreased reoperation rates. For invasive BC, age >40 years, triple-negative tumors, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and noncentral tumors decreased reoperation rates and lobular tumor, multifocal tumors, lymphovascular invasion, DCIS component, and Her2-positive tumors increased reoperation rates. For patients requiring reoperation, re-excision was performed in 48.1% (1,523/3,168) and mastectomy was required after first re-excision in 13.46% (205/1,523). For DCIS, mastectomy rates were higher for grade 2 and tumor ≥20 mm. For invasive BC, mastectomy rates were higher for lobular, multifocal, ≥20 mm, Her2-positive tumors and diffuse positive margins and lower for age >50 years and during the last period. Even if interval time between surgery and adjuvant treatments was higher for patients with reoperation, survival rates were not different between patients with and without reoperation. Conclusion: A decrease in reoperation and mastectomy rates had been reported with several associated factors. A third intervention with mastectomy was required in 13.5% of patients. This information should be done in case of reoperation.

Study objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of indocyanine green (ICG) compared to that of the gold standard 99mtechnetium (99mTc-nanocolloids) in detecting sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) in early vulvar cancer. Material and Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study comparing SLN detection by 99mTc-nanocolloids and ICG was performed in patients presenting early vulvar cancer (T1/2), with clinically negative nodes. All SLN showing a radioactive and/or fluorescent signal were resected. The primary endpoints were the sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV) and false negative (FN) rate of ICG in detecting SLN compared to 99mTc-nanocolloids. Results: Thirty patients were included and 99 SLN were identified in 43 groins. Compared to 99mTc-nanocolloids, ICG had a sensitivity of 80.8% (95% CI [72.6; 88.6%]), a PPV of 96.2% (95% CI [91.8; 100%]) and a FN rate of 19.1% in detecting SLN. Seventeen (17.1%) infiltrated (positive) SLN were identified out of the 99 SLN detected. Compared to 99mTc-nanocolloids, ICG showed a sensitivity of 82.3% (95% CI [73.1; 91.5%]), a PPV of 100% and a FN rate of 17.6% (3/17) in detecting infiltrated SLN. Conclusion: Despite its many advantages, ICG cannot be used as the sole tracer for the detection of SLN in early vulvar cancer and should be employed in conjunction with 99mTc-nanocolloids.

• Our article lists all cases in the neovaginal cancer literature since 1929. • We propose an explanation of the pathophysiology of the development of neovaginal cancer. • We propose a classification of neovaginal cancers.

Omission of completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) in patients undergoing mastectomy with sentinel node (SN) isolated tumor cells (ITC) or micrometastases is debated due to potential under-treatment, with non-sentinel node (NSN) involvement detected in 7% to 18% of patients. This study evaluated the survival impact of cALND omission in a cohort of breast cancer (BC) patients treated by mastectomy with SN ITC or micrometastases. Among 554 early BC patients (391 pN1mi, 163 ITC), the NSN involvement rate was 13.2% (49/371). With a median follow-up of 66.46 months, multivariate analysis revealed significant associations between cALND omission and overall survival (OS, HR: 2.583, p = 0.043), disease-free survival (DFS, HR: 2.538, p = 0.008), and metastasis-free survival (MFS, HR: 2.756, p = 0.014). For Her2-positive or triple-negative patients, DFS was significantly affected by cALND omission (HR: 38.451, p = 0.030). In ER-positive Her2-negative BC, DFS, OS, recurrence-free survival (RFS), and MFS were significantly associated with cALND omission (DFS HR: 2.358, p = 0.043; OS HR: 3.317; RFS HR: 2.538; MFS HR: 2.756). For 161 patients aged ≤50 years with ER-positive/Her2-negative cancer, OS and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) were notably impacted by cALND omission (OS HR: 103.47, p = 0.004; BCSS HR: 50.874, p = 0.035). These findings suggest a potential negative prognostic impact of cALND omission in patients with SN micrometastases or ITC. Further randomized trials are needed.