4.6 Article

Efficacy and Safety of Mitoxantrone Hydrochloride Injection for Tracing Axillary Sentinel Nodes in Breast Cancer: A Self-Controlled Clinical Trial

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.914057

关键词

breast cancer; sentinel lymph node biopsy; mitoxantrone hydrochloride injection for tracing; mastectomy; breast-conserving surgery; radioactive tracers

类别

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFC1311004]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81672638, 81502314, 81302297, 81973494]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of Mitoxantrone hydrochloride injection for tracing (MHI) in sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for breast cancer. The results showed that MHI has comparable efficacy to radionuclides and can be used alone or in combination with radioactive substances for SLNB.
BackgroundMitoxantrone hydrochloride injection for tracing (MHI), a new strategy to identify lymph nodes, has not been tested for axillary node staging in breast cancer. This multicenter, self-controlled, non-inferiority trial aimed to evaluate MHI's efficacy and safety in sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). MethodsThe trial was conducted across seven hospitals from December 2019 to December 2020. Patients with early-stage breast cancer received MHI and technetium-99m (99mTc) during the surgery. Sentinel node detection rates were compared between MHI and 99mTc to evaluate non-inferiority and concordance. Non-inferiority was valid if the lower limit of the 95% CI of sentinel node relative detection rate difference was >=-5%. ResultsSLN relative detection rate of MHI was 97.31% (362/372). Of the SLNs, 79.69% (871/1093) were co-detected by both tracers. Of the patients, 4.13% (16/387) had adverse events and recovered during the follow-up. ConclusionsMHI is a lymphatic tracer with comparable efficacy to radionuclides and can be used alone or in combination with radioactive substances for SLNB.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据