In the last two decades, surgical methods for axillary staging in breast cancer patients have become less extensive, and full axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) is confined to selected patients. In initially node-positive patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, however, the optimal management remains unclear. Current guidelines vary widely, endorsing different strategies. We performed a literature review on axillary staging strategies and their place in international recommendations. This overview defines knowledge gaps associated with specific procedures, summarizes currently ongoing clinical trials that address these unsolved issues, and provides the rationale for further research. While some guidelines have already implemented surgical de-escalation, replacing ALND with, e.g., sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or targeted axillary dissection (TAD) in cN+ patients converting to clinical node negativity, others recommend ALND. Numerous techniques are in use for tagging lymph node metastasis, but many questions regarding the marking technique, i.e., the optimal time for marker placement and the number of marked nodes, remain unanswered. The optimal number of SLNs to be excised also remains a matter of debate. Data on oncological safety and quality of life following different staging procedures are lacking. These results provide the rationale for the multinational prospective cohort study AXSANA initiated by EUBREAST, which started enrollment in June 2020 and aims at recruiting 3000 patients in 20 countries (NCT04373655; Funded by AGO-B, Claudia von Schilling Foundation for Breast Cancer Research, AWOgyn, EndoMag, Mammotome, and MeritMedical).

Introduction: There is much literature about the role of 2-[¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT in patients with breast cancer (BC). However, there exists no international guideline with involvement of the nuclear medicine societies about this subject. Purpose: To provide an organized, international, state-of-the-art, and multidisciplinary guideline, led by experts of two nuclear medicine societies (EANM and SNMMI) and representation of important societies in the field of BC (ACR, ESSO, ESTRO, EUSOBI/ESR, and EUSOMA). Methods: Literature review and expert discussion were performed with the aim of collecting updated information regarding the role of 2-[¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT in patients with no special type (NST) BC and summarizing its indications according to scientific evidence. Recommendations were scored according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) criteria. Results: Quantitative PET features (SUV, MTV, TLG) are valuable prognostic parameters. In baseline staging, 2-[¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT plays a role from stage IIB through stage IV. When assessing response to therapy, 2-[¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT should be performed on certified scanners, and reported either according to PERCIST, EORTC PET, or EANM immunotherapy response criteria, as appropriate. 2-[¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT may be useful to assess early metabolic response, particularly in non-metastatic triple-negative and HER2+ tumours. 2-[¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT is useful to detect the site and extent of recurrence when conventional imaging methods are equivocal and when there is clinical and/or laboratorial suspicion of relapse. Recent developments are promising. Conclusion: 2-[¹⁸F]FDG PET/CT is extremely useful in BC management, as supported by extensive evidence of its utility compared to other imaging modalities in several clinical scenarios.

Breast lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) include atypical ductal and lobular hyperplasias, lobular carcinoma in situ, flat epithelial atypia, papillary lesions, radial scars and fibroepithelial lesions as well as other rare miscellaneous lesions. They are challenging to categorise histologically, requiring specialist training and multidisciplinary input. They may coexist with in situ or invasive breast cancer (BC) and increase the risk of subsequent BC development. Management should focus on adequate classification and management whilst avoiding overtreatment. The aim of these guidelines is to provide updated information regarding the diagnosis and management of B3 lesions, according to updated literature review evidence. These guidelines provide practical recommendations which can be applied in clinical practice which include recommendation grade and level of evidence. All sections were written according to an updated literature review and discussed at a consensus meeting. Critical appraisal by the expert writing committee adhered to the 23 items in the international Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) tool. Recommendations for further management after core-needle biopsy (CNB) or vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) diagnosis of a B3 lesion reported in this guideline, vary depending on the presence of atypia, size of lesion, sampling size, and patient preferences. After CNB or VAB, the option of vacuum-assisted excision or surgical excision should be evaluated by a multidisciplinary team and shared decision-making with the patient is crucial for personalizing further treatment. De-escalation of surgical intervention for B3 breast lesions is ongoing, and the inclusion of vacuum-assisted excision (VAE) will decrease the need for surgical intervention in further approaches. Communication with patients may be different according to histological diagnosis, presence or absence of atypia, or risk of upgrade due to discordant imaging. Written information resources to help patients understand these issues alongside with verbal communication is recommended. Lifestyle interventions have a significant impact on BC incidence so lifestyle interventions need to be suggested to women at increased BC risk as a result of a diagnosis of a B3 lesion. These guidelines provide a state-of-the-art overview of the diagnosis, management and prognosis of B3 lesions in modern multidisciplinary breast practice.

Background: Surgical excision of a non-palpable breast lesion requires a localization step. Among available techniques, wire-guided localization (WGL) is most commonly used. Other techniques (radioactive, magnetic, radar or radiofrequency-based, and intraoperative ultrasound) have been developed in the last two decades with the aim of improving outcomes and logistics. Methods: We performed a systematic review on localization techniques for non-palpable breast cancer. Results: For most techniques, oncological outcomes such as lesion identification and clear margin rate seem either comparable with or better than for WGL, but evidence is limited to small cohort studies for some of the devices. Intraoperative ultrasound is associated with significantly higher negative margin rates in meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Radioactive techniques were studied in several RCTs and are non-inferior to WGL. Smaller studies show higher patient preference towards wire-free localization, but little is known about surgeons’ and radiologists’ attitudes towards these techniques. Conclusions: Large studies with an additional focus on patient, surgeon, and radiologist preference are necessary. This review aims to present the rationale for the MELODY (NCT05559411) study and to enable standardization of outcome measures for future studies.