Purpose An increasing proportion of patients (> 30%) with node-positive breast cancer will obtain an axillary pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). If sentinel node (SN) biopsy (SNB) is accurate in this setting, completion node dissection (CND) morbidity could be avoided. Patients and Methods In the prospective multicentric SN FNAC study, patients with biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer (T0-3, N1-2) underwent both SNB and CND. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) use was mandatory, and SN metastases of any size, including isolated tumor cells (ypN0[i+], ≤ 0.2 mm), were considered positive. The optimal SNB identification rate (IR) ≥ 90% and false-negative rate (FNR) ≤ 10% were predetermined. Results From March 2009 to December 2012, 153 patients were accrued to the study. The SNB IR was 87.6% (127 of 145; 95% CI, 82.2% to 93.0%), and the FNR was 8.4% (seven of 83; 95% CI, 2.4% to 14.4%). If SN ypN0(i+)s had been considered negative, the FNR would have increased to 13.3% (11 of 83; 95% CI, 6.0% to 20.6%). There was no correlation between size of SN metastases and rate of positive non-SNs. Using this method, 30.3% of patients could potentially avoid CND. Conclusion In biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer after NAC, a low SNB FNR (8.4%) can be achieved with mandatory use of IHC. SN metastases of any size should be considered positive. The SNB IR was 87.6%, and in the presence of a technical failure, axillary node dissection should be performed. We recommend that SN evaluation with IHC be further evaluated before being included in future guidelines on the use of SNB after NAC in this setting.

With the recent Health Canada approval of olaparib for high-risk, HER2-negative early breast cancer, physicians are now facing the practical challenges of integrating olaparib into current management of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and HR-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2−) early breast cancer. This review provides perspectives on some of the challenges related to identification of olaparib candidates, with a focus on the latest guidance for germline BRCA testing and considerations regarding high-risk disease definitions. Updated treatment pathways are explored for both disease states, including other adjuvant treatment options such as pembrolizumab, capecitabine, and abemaciclib. Gaps in the current literature regarding the sequential or combined use of these adjuvant therapies are noted and future, potentially informative, studies are briefly examined.

The accurate staging of breast cancer is fundamental for guiding treatment decisions and predicting patient outcomes. However, there can be considerable variation in routine clinical practice based on individual interpretation of guidelines and depending on the healthcare provider initially involved in working up patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer, ranging from primary care providers, triage nurses, surgeons, and/or oncologists. The optimal approach for clinical staging, particularly in asymptomatic patients presenting with intermediate-risk disease, remains a topic of dialogue among clinicians. Given this area of uncertainty, the Research Excellence, Active Leadership (REAL) Canadian Breast Cancer Alliance conducted a modified Delphi process to assess the level of agreement among Canadian expert clinicians on various staging recommendations. In total, 20 items were drafted covering staging based on biological status, the utilization of localization clips, both for the axilla during diagnosis and primary surgical site for margins and radiation therapy planning, and the use of advanced imaging for the investigation of distant metastases. Overall, the consensus threshold among all participants (i.e., ≥75% agreement) was reached in 20/20 items. Differences in clinical practice and recent findings from the literature are provided in the discussion. These consensus recommendations are meant to help standardize breast cancer staging practices in Canada, ensuring accurate diagnosis and optimal treatment planning.