Purpose: To develop a guideline for the use of sentinel node biopsy (SNB) in early stage breast cancer.Methods: An American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Expert Panel conducted a systematic review of the literature available through February 2004 on the use of SNB in early-stage breast cancer. The panel developed a guideline for clinicians and patients regarding the appropriate use of a sentinel lymph node identification and sampling procedure from hereon referred to as SNB. The guideline was reviewed by selected experts in the field and the ASCO Health Services Committee and was approved by the ASCO Board of Directors.Results: The literature review identified one published prospective randomized controlled trial in which SNB was compared with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), four limited meta-analyses, and 69 published single-institution and multicenter trials in which the test performance of SNB was evaluated with respect to the results of ALND (completion axillary dissection). There are currently no data on the effect of SLN biopsy on long-term survival of patients with breast cancer. However, a review of the available evidence demonstrates that, when performed by experienced clinicians, SNB appears to be a safe and acceptably accurate method for identifying early-stage breast cancer without involvement of the axillary lymph nodes.Conclusion: SNB is an appropriate initial alternative to routine staging ALND for patients with early-stage breast cancer with clinically negative axillary nodes. Completion ALND remains standard treatment for patients with axillary metastases identified on SNB. Appropriately identified patients with negative results of SNB, when done under the direction of an experienced surgeon, need not have completion ALND. Isolated cancer cells detected by pathologic examination of the SLN with use of specialized techniques are currently of unknown clinical significance. Although such specialized techniques are often used, they are not a required part of SLN evaluation for breast cancer at this time. Data suggest that SNB is associated with less morbidity than ALND, but the comparative effects of these two approaches on tumor recurrence or patient survival are unknown.

In this study, we evaluate a two-tier system for grading ovarian serous carcinoma. This system is based primarily on the assessment of nuclear atypia with the mitotic rate used as a secondary feature. The study included 50 cases of low-grade ovarian serous carcinoma and 50 cases of high-grade ovarian serous carcinoma retrieved from the files of the Department of Pathology at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center from a 28-year period. Cases assigned to the low-grade category were characterized by the presence of mild to moderate nuclear atypia. As a secondary feature, they tended to show up to 12 mitoses per 10 high power fields (HPFs), whereas those in the high-grade category had marked nuclear atypia and as a secondary feature more than 12 mitoses per 10 HPFs. For comparison, the tumors were also graded using the Shimizu/Silverberg and the FIGO grading systems. Patients in the low-grade ovarian serous carcinoma group ranged in age from 19 to 75 years (mean 41.7 years) while patients in the high-grade ovarian serous carcinoma group ranged in age from 27 to 76 years (mean 55 years). All of the cases except one were advanced FIGO stage. Using the Shimizu/Silverberg system, the low-grade ovarian serous carcinoma cases were distributed as follows: grade 1, 47 cases; grade 2, 3 cases. Using the FIGO grading system, 35 cases were grade 1 and 15 cases were grade 2. Regarding the high-grade ovarian serous carcinoma group using the Shimizu/Silverberg system, 14 of the cases were grade 2 and 36 cases were grade 3. Using the FIGO grading system, 1 case was grade 1, 38 cases were grade 2, and 11 cases were grade 3. Most of the patients in both groups were treated with total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and also received cisplatinum-based chemotherapy. On follow-up, 37 patients in the low-grade ovarian serous carcinoma group had died of disease at a median 4.2 years after diagnosis compared with 46 patients in the high-grade ovarian serous carcinoma group who died of disease at a median of 1.7 years. Eight patients in the low-grade ovarian serous carcinoma group and 4 patients in the high-grade ovarian serous carcinoma group were alive with disease at median follow-ups of 4.3 and 3.85 years, respectively. Four patients with low-grade serous carcinoma were alive without evidence of disease after a follow-up that ranged from 4.4 to 22.6 years (median 6.85 years), and one died of other causes 14 years after the diagnosis of her ovarian tumor. On multivariate analysis, residual tumor and tumor grade based on the M. D. Anderson two-tier system for grading ovarian serous carcinoma were found to be significant independent prognostic factors (P = 0.003 and 0.04, respectively). Of interest, 60% of the low-grade ovarian serous carcinomas in this study were associated with a serous neoplasm of low malignant potential, whereas this association was present in only 2% of the high-grade ovarian serous carcinomas. This finding could reflect a difference in the pathogenesis of ovarian serous carcinomas of different grades. In summary, there is usually a good correlation between the two-tier grading system herein presented and the Shimizu/Silverberg and the FIGO grading systems. Because this system is based on defined criteria that are easy to follow and because it involves only two diagnostic categories, it should provide better reproducibility in the grading of ovarian serous carcinoma. However, additional studies are required to validate these statements.

Background: For many diseases, specialized care (i.e., care rendered by a specialist) has been associated with superior-quality care (i.e., better outcomes). We examined associations between physician specialty and outcomes in a population-based cohort of elderly ovarian cancer surgery patients. Methods: We analyzed the Medicare claims, by physician specialty, of all women aged 65 years or older who underwent surgery for pathologically confirmed invasive epithelial ovarian cancer between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 1999, while living in an area monitored by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program to assess important care processes (i.e., the appropriate extent of surgery and use of adjuvant chemotherapy) and outcomes (i.e., surgical complications, ostomy rates, and survival). All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Among 3067 ovarian cancer patients who underwent surgery, 1017 patients (33%) were treated by a gynecologic oncologist, 1377 patients (45%) by a general gynecologist, and 673 patients (22%) by a general surgeon. Among patients with stage I or II disease, those treated by a gynecologic oncologist (60%) were more likely to undergo lymph node dissection than those treated by a general gynecologist (36%) or a general surgeon (16%). Patients with stage III or IV disease were more likely to undergo a debulking procedure if the initial surgery was performed by a gynecologic oncologist (58%) than by a general gynecologist (51%) or a general surgeon (40%; P <.001) and were more likely to receive postoperative chemotherapy when operated on by a gynecologic oncologist (79%) or a general gynecologist (76%) than by a general surgeon (62%, P <.001). Survival among patients operated on by gynecologic oncologists (hazard ratio [HR] of death from any cause = 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76 to 0.95) or general gynecologists (HR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.78 to 0.96) was better than that among patients operated on by general surgeons. Conclusions: Ovarian cancer patients treated by gynecologic oncologists had marginally better outcomes than those treated by general gynecologists and clearly superior outcomes compared with patients treated by general surgeons.

Purpose: To compare quality of life and sexual functioning in cervical cancer survivors treated with either radical hysterectomy and lymph node dissection or radiotherapy. Methods: Women were interviewed at least 5 years after initial treatment for cervical cancer. Eligible women had squamous cell tumors smaller than 6 cm at diagnosis, were currently disease-free, and had either undergone surgery or radiotherapy, but not both. The two treatment groups were then compared using univariate analysis and multivariate linear regression with a control group of age- and race-matched women with no history of cancer. Results: One hundred fourteen patients (37 surgery, 37 radiotherapy, 40 controls) were included for analysis. When compared with surgery patients and controls using univariate analysis, radiation patients had significantly poorer scores on standardized questionnaires measuring health-related quality of life (physical and mental health), psychosocial distress and sexual functioning. The disparity in sexual function remained significant in a multivariate analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses did not show significant differences between radical hysterectomy patients and controls on any of the outcome measures. Conclusion: Cervical cancer survivors treated with radiotherapy had worse sexual functioning than did those treated with radical hysterectomy and lymph node dissection. In contrast, these data suggest that cervical cancer survivors treated with surgery alone can expect overall quality of life and sexual function not unlike that of peers without a history of cancer.