Bryn Mawr Hospital

About: Bryn Mawr Hospital is a healthcare organization based out in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Breast cancer & Whole blood. The organization has 274 authors who have published 266 publications receiving 9310 citations.

Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial

Abstract: Summary Background Sentinel-lymph-node (SLN) surgery was designed to minimise the side-effects of lymph-node surgery but still offer outcomes equivalent to axillary-lymph-node dissection (ALND). The aims of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) trial B-32 were to establish whether SLN resection in patients with breast cancer achieves the same survival and regional control as ALND, but with fewer side-effects. Methods NSABP B-32 was a randomised controlled phase 3 trial done at 80 centres in Canada and the USA between May 1, 1999, and Feb 29, 2004. Women with invasive breast cancer were randomly assigned to either SLN resection plus ALND (group 1) or to SLN resection alone with ALND only if the SLNs were positive (group 2). Random assignment was done at the NSABP Biostatistical Center (Pittsburgh, PA, USA) with a biased coin minimisation approach in an allocation ratio of 1:1. Stratification variables were age at entry (≤49 years, ≥50 years), clinical tumour size (≤2·0 cm, 2·1–4·0 cm, ≥4·1 cm), and surgical plan (lumpectomy, mastectomy). SLN resection was done with a blue dye and radioactive tracer. Outcome analyses were done in patients who were assessed as having pathologically negative sentinel nodes and for whom follow-up data were available. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. All deaths, irrespective of cause, were included. The mean time on study for the SLN-negative patients with follow-up information was 95·6 months (range 70·1–126·7). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00003830. Findings 5611 women were randomly assigned to the treatment groups, 3989 had pathologically negative SLN. 309 deaths were reported in the 3986 SLN-negative patients with follow-up information: 140 of 1975 patients in group 1 and 169 of 2011 in group 2. Log-rank comparison of overall survival in groups 1 and 2 yielded an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1·20 (95% CI 0·96–1·50; p=0·12). 8-year Kaplan-Meier estimates for overall survival were 91·8% (95% CI 90·4–93·3) in group 1 and 90·3% (88·8–91·8) in group 2. Treatment comparisons for disease-free survival yielded an unadjusted HR of 1·05 (95% CI 0·90–1·22; p=0·54). 8-year Kaplan-Meier estimates for disease-free survival were 82·4% (80·5–84·4) in group 1 and 81·5% (79·6–83·4) in group 2. There were eight regional-node recurrences as first events in group 1 and 14 in group 2 (p=0·22). Patients are continuing follow-up for longer-term assessment of survival and regional control. The most common adverse events were allergic reactions, mostly related to the administration of the blue dye. Interpretation Overall survival, disease-free survival, and regional control were statistically equivalent between groups. When the SLN is negative, SLN surgery alone with no further ALND is an appropriate, safe, and effective therapy for breast cancer patients with clinically negative lymph nodes. Funding US Public Health Service, National Cancer Institute, and Department of Health and Human Services.

Technical outcomes of sentinel-lymph-node resection and conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer: results from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase III trial

Abstract: Summary Background The goals of axillary-lymph-node dissection (ALND) are to maximise survival, provide regional control, and stage the patient. However, this technique has substantial side-effects. The purpose of the B-32 trial is to establish whether sentinel-lymph-node (SLN) resection can achieve the same therapeutic goals as conventional ALND but with decreased side-effects. The aim of this paper is to report the technical success and accuracy of SLN resection plus ALND versus SLN resection alone. Methods 5611 women with invasive breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive either SLN resection followed by immediate conventional ALND (n=2807; group 1) or SLN resection without ALND if SLNs were negative on intraoperative cytology and histological examination (n=2804; group 2) in the B-32 trial. Patients in group 2 underwent ALND if no SLNs were identified or if one or more SLNs were positive on intraoperative cytology or subsequent histological examination. Primary endpoints, including survival, regional control, and morbidity, will be reported later. Secondary endpoints are accuracy and technical success and are reported here. This trial is registered with the Clinical Trial registry, number NCT00003830. Findings Data for technical success were available for 5536 of 5611 patients; 75 declined protocol treatment, had no SLNs removed, or had no SLN resection done. SLNs were successfully removed in 97·2% of patients (5379 of 5536) in both groups combined. Identification of a preincision hot spot was associated with greater SLN removal (98·9% [5072 of 5128]). Only 1·4% (189 of 13171) of SLN specimens were outside of axillary levels I and II. 65·1% (8571 of 13 171) of SLN specimens were both radioactive and blue; a small percentage was identified by palpation only (3·9% [515 of 13 171]). The overall accuracy of SLN resection in patients in group 1 was 97·1% (2544 of 2619; 95% CI 96·4–97·7), with a false-negative rate of 9·8% (75 of 766; 95% CI 7·8–12·2). Differences in tumour location, type of biopsy, and number of SLNs removed significantly affected the false-negative rate. Allergic reactions related to blue dye occurred in 0·7% (37 of 5588) of patients with data on toxic effects. Interpretation The findings reported here indicate excellent balance in clinical patient characteristics between the two randomised groups and that the success of SLN resection was high. These findings are important because the B-32 trial is the only trial of sufficient size to provide definitive information related to the primary outcome measures of survival and regional control. Removal of more than one SLN and avoidance of excisional biopsy are important variables in reducing the false-negative rate.

A new concept in maxillary implant surgery: the osteotome technique.

Abstract: This article reviews the limitations of drilling into soft bone to place endosseous implants. Differences among bone types and the anatomy of the maxilla are described. The osteotome technique, which is a new method of placing implants into maxillary bone without drilling, and the rationale for two other procedures, the osteotome sinus floor elevation and the ridge expansion osteotomy, are detailed. How osteotomes conserve osseous tissue and may improve bone density around the implant is also discussed. A pilot study that shows excellent results with several types of press-fit implants using the osteotome technique is provided. The author concludes that the osteotome technique is superior to drilling for many applications in soft maxillary bone. Furthermore, the osteotome technique allows more implants to be inserted in a greater variety of sites during a routine office procedure.

Hand strength: normative values.

Abstract: We studied normal hand strength and the difference between dominant and nondominant hands. Two hundred fourteen volunteers were tested with a calibrated Jamar dynamometer at all five levels. A pinch gauge was used to assess key and pulp pinch. Height, weight, sex, hand dominance, and hobby demands were predictive of maximum grip. Mean maximum grip for women was 81 lb. and for men was 137 lb. Key pinch averaged 22%, while pulp pinch averaged 16% of maximum grip. Only 129 (60%) patients had maximum strengths at level 2. The majority of right-handed subjects were 10% stronger in grip strength on the dominant side. In left-handed subjects, mean grip was the same for both hands; the nondominant hand was stronger in 50% of left-handed subjects.

The Appropriate Use of Neurostimulation of the Spinal Cord and Peripheral Nervous System for the Treatment of Chronic Pain and Ischemic Diseases: The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee

Abstract: Introduction: The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) of the International Neuromodulation Society (INS) evaluated evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of neurostimulation to treat chronic pain, chronic critical limb ischemia, and refractory angina and recommended appropriate clinical applications. Methods: The NACC used literature reviews, expert opinion, clinical experience, and individual research. Authors consulted the Practice Parameters for the Use of Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain (2006), systematic reviews (1984 to 2013), and prospective and randomized controlled trials (2005 to 2013) identified through PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. Results: Neurostimulation is relatively safe because of its minimally invasive and reversible characteristics. Comparison with medical management is difficult, as patients considered for neurostimulation have failed conservative management. Unlike alternative therapies, neurostimulation is not associated with medication-related side effects and has enduring effect. Device-related complications are not uncommon; however, the incidence is becoming less frequent as technology progresses and surgical skills improve. Randomized controlled studies support the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation in treating failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome. Similar studies of neurostimulation for peripheral neuropathic pain, postamputation pain, postherpetic neuralgia, and other causes of nerve injury are needed. International guidelines recommend spinal cord stimulation to treat refractory angina; other indications, such as congestive heart failure, are being investigated. Conclusions: Appropriate neurostimulation is safe and effective in some chronic pain conditions. Technological refinements and clinical evidence will continue to expand its use. The NACC seeks to facilitate the efficacy and safety of neurostimulation.