Printer Friendly

The Use of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers Undergoing Prophylactic Mastectomy: A Retrospective Consecutive Case-Series Study.

1. Introduction

Prophylactic mastectomies have become more frequent [1,2], and there are several possible reasons for this. These include new predictive models, the identification of gene mutations other than BRCA (e.g., PALB2, CHEK2, and others), the increased diagnosis of high-risk lesions, and the so-called "Angelina Jolie effect" [3-6].

In women with a BRCA1/2 deleterious mutation, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is expected to improve all-cause mortality [7, 8]. Meanwhile, there is no evidence of a survival benefit with bilateral prophylactic mastectomies (either in BRCA mutation carriers or other high-risk women) [9]. There is also no evidence of any benefit of proceeding to sentinel lymph node biopsy in prophylactic mastectomy, nor any evidence about how to proceed when occult carcinoma is found during prophylactic mastectomy and axillary staging is no longer possible.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy is considered to have minimal surgical risk and avoids axillary lymphadenectomy if an occult carcinoma is found [10, 11]. However, it is time-consuming and expensive and may cause complications including paresthesias, lymphedema, and arm motion limitation (with estimated risks of 9%, 2-7%, and 4%, resp.) [12-15]. With a low probability of occult carcinoma in prophylactic breast surgery [16] and a low probability of lymph node metastasis [17], sentinel lymph node biopsy has been estimated to benefit only 2.8% of patients [18]. A recent meta-analysis has recommended against the routine use of sentinel lymph node biopsy [16]. A positive sentinel lymph node biopsy in the absence of occult carcinoma has also been described [17,19-25], and crossover metastasis was a possible explanation [16,17, 21-24].

Considering the higher incidence of prophylactic mastectomies and the present controversy on sentinel lymph node biopsy in this type of surgery, our study adds to the literature by specifically addressing this subject in a high risk for occult carcinoma women, BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, and to whom preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was routine. Our objective was then to review the outcomes and clinical utility of sentinel lymph node biopsy in prophylactic mastectomy in a consecutive group of systematically evaluated high risk for occult carcinoma women.

2. Materials and Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers who underwent at least 1 prophylactic mastectomy at our center, between 2009 and 2015. All the patients had previously been counseled at our center's Breast Cancer Risk Evaluation Clinic.

The study population descriptive analysis included age, genetic diagnosis, breast cancer history (no personal history of breast cancer, breast cancer treated in the past or a synchronous to prophylactic mastectomy, histology, clinical stage, and previous oncological treatments), surgery performed, breast and axillary histological findings, and follow-up.

All patients underwent breast MRI within 6 months before prophylactic mastectomy, unless contraindicated. Breast MRI was carefully reviewed by our Breast Cancer Committee Radiologists, in order to exclude infraclinical or contralateral carcinoma. Any prophylactic side doubtful lesion would undergo biopsy or SLNB would be directly indicated (according to the level of suspicion and the risks of postulating surgery).

Prophylactic mastectomies were total or skin-sparing (with or without nipple sparing) mastectomies, with or without immediate reconstruction. A dual technique (technetium 99 sulfur colloid and patent blue dye) was used for sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Both prophylactic mastectomy type of surgery and the indication for SLNB were indicated by the Breast Cancer Committee (including dedicated radiologists, medical oncologists, and surgeons). The choice of prophylactic mastectomy type is beyond the scope of this work. The indication for SLNB took into consideration the patient informed consent after discussing the benefits and risks of alternative procedures and the risk factors for occult carcinoma.

For pathological examination, the breast parenchyma was entirely processed in 3-4 mm slices and the sentinel lymph node was microscopically evaluated in 2 mm slices using hematoxylin-eosin staining (according to our prophylactic mastectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy protocol). During this research, all specimens were reviewed by 2 pathologists to confirm the histological findings.

To determine the clinical utility of sentinel lymph node biopsy, the occult carcinoma and the sentinel lymph node biopsy positivity rates were calculated. Patient and tumor characteristics were analyzed to identify positive predictive factors for occult carcinoma or sentinel lymph node biopsy positivity. For follow-up outcomes, local recurrence and mortality were analyzed. Our study protocol was multidisciplinary defined and accepted by our Institution Committee.

3. Results

From a total of 73 women (101 prophylactic mastectomies), 57 patients (80 prophylactic mastectomies) were confirmed to be BRCA1/2 deleterious mutation carriers and were considered for further analysis (Figure 1).

MRI was performed within 6 months before prophylactic mastectomy in 82% (n = 47) of the patients. The remaining patients either refused the examination, were allergic to the MRI contrast agent, or had other MRI contraindications (Table 1).

Half of the women (51%) had been treated with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or hormonotherapy before undergoing prophylactic mastectomy. These therapies were either neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer that was being operated on simultaneously with the prophylactic mastectomy or treatment for a previous breast cancer. Women who had previously undergone surgery for breast cancer had a median time interval between breast cancer surgery and prophylactic mastectomy of 90 months (interquartile range [IQR] 10-228 months). No locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer was present at the time of prophylactic mastectomy. Two patients underwent surgery for recurrent breast cancer at the same time as their contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (Supplementary Table 1).

The occult carcinoma rate was 5% (n = 4), and the occult invasive carcinoma rate was 2.5% (n = 2). Occult carcinoma occurred in 75% of patients with a personal history of breast cancer and a BRCA1 pathogenic mutation, although this was not a significant result because of the small number of cases. Among the 4 patients with occult carcinoma, this was present at a small volume of disease and there were no relevant similitudes in the characteristics of breast cancer (if there was a previous or synchronous breast cancer diagnosed before surgery), radiological findings on the prophylactic side, or occult carcinoma histological findings. During a median follow-up of 30 months (IQR 25-55 months), no local or distant recurrence was diagnosed (Table 2).

A sentinel lymph node biopsy was performed in 19% (n = 15) of the prophylactic mastectomies. Median number of SLN removed per operated breast was 1 (1-2).

The sentinel lymph node was identified in all of the cases, and none was positive for tumor cells. Nonsentinel lymph nodes were not retrieved in any of the cases. In our center, the rate of sentinel lymph node biopsy in prophylactic mastectomy was at its highest in 2015 (71% of the cases). Two women with occult invasive carcinoma had not undergone sentinel lymph node biopsy during prophylactic mastectomy and were managed with both axillary ultrasound and close follow-up.

With no patients (n = 57) lost to follow-up, at a median of 37 months (14-57), 1 death had occurred because of a primary tumor in the contralateral breast (a 45-mm, not otherwise specified, poorly differentiated, triple-negative, invasive carcinoma) and systemic relapse. There were no breast or axillary recurrence events (both prophylactic and therapeutic sides).

4. Discussion

Sentinel lymph node biopsy is controversial in the prophylactic mastectomy setting because of the expected advantage of avoiding axillary lymphadenectomy versus the low number of cases it will benefit [26]. Studies addressing this question have included a heterogeneous population of high-risk women. In addition to including only BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, other notable characteristics of our study included the facts that an MRI evaluation before surgery is part of our standard protocol and that whole specimens of the breast parenchyma were entirely processed and the slides reviewed to confirm histologic findings. Our study population is the result of a systematized assessment by both a Breast Cancer Risk Evaluation Clinic and a Breast Cancer Committee.

First of all, in what regards MRI, others have argued against its routine use in prophylactic mastectomy, because of its high cost and low sensitivity for the detection of occult carcinoma [22]. However, MRI is recommended for the surveillance of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers [27, 28]; MRI has a high negative predictive value for invasive carcinoma [29] and can be useful for selecting women who do not need to undergo sentinel lymph node biopsy (because occult carcinomas that have not been identified using MRI have a lower probability of lymph node metastasis) [30]. Our group reinforces the importance of MRI at a short interval before surgery, since all our patients had a BRCA1/2 pathogenic mutation and, therefore, a higher risk both for occult and for interval carcinoma. In fact, in spite of being a high-risk group, the occult carcinoma incidence in our study (5%) was similar to that reported by others (6.0% [3], 4.8% [10], and 1.76% [31]) and the same can be concluded for our occult invasive carcinoma rate (2.5% versus 2% [17], 1.2% [10, 31], and 0% [3]).

In what concerns the sentinel lymph node biopsy rate (19%), it was lower than other reported rates (21.8% [31], 29% [22], 66.7% [3], 74% [30], and 76.9% [17]). However, for the follow-up described in our study, the patient outcome was not affected by the decision to undergo sentinel lymph node biopsy and the verified death was because of primary tumor progression, with no local recurrence events.

For the evaluation of possible positive predictive factors, this could not be accomplished, considering we found no positive sentinel lymph nodes. In the literature, sentinel lymph node biopsy positivity was associated with contralateral breast cancer, especially if the disease was locally advanced or inflammatory, and with a higher number of positive lymph nodes [3, 16-18, 21-23, 25, 32]. Sentinel lymph node biopsy positivity was also associated with lymphovascular or skin/nipple involvement, higher histologic grades [21], patients aged over 60 years, and lobular histology [26]. Of relevance, in our group of patients there was no locally advanced breast cancer case at the time of prophylactic mastectomy.

The decision to do not proceeding to lymphadenectomy in patients with occult invasive cancer without sentinel lymph node biopsy has been described by others [19, 31] and, in our perspective, close follow-up (comprising an axillary ultrasound) is an option which avoids overtreatment or lymphadenectomy-associated morbidity.

The median number of lymph nodes removed from operated breasts was 1 (range 1-2), which is in agreement with the results of other studies (1.35 [10], 1.46 [25], and 2 [31]). This assessment is important because a higher number of biopsied lymph nodes reduce the false negative rate but also increase morbidity.

Limitations of our study include its retrospective nature, the short follow-up period, and the fact that we did not analyze complications related to sentinel lymph node biopsy (due to an underreport perception). Unfortunately, a high level of evidence on this subject is hard to achieve.

Finally, regarding our findings and the results in the literature, we recommend that sentinel lymph node biopsy should be offered to a selected group of patients, including women with a synchronous or previous breast cancer diagnosis and those who cannot be evaluated using MRI in the short interval before surgery.

5. Conclusion

Our data and present evidence support that performing a sentinel lymph node biopsy in selected patients, instead of routine sentinel lymph node biopsy, is the better approach for prophylactic mastectomy, including in women with a deleterious mutation in BRCA1/2. Even if recent routine preoperative breast MRI is probably the most important strategy in the selection of these patients, other factors must be considered.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Table 1. Tumor characteristics and oncologic treatments received--other than surgical--in women with breast cancer (either synchronous to prophylactic mastectomy or prior to it). (Supplementary Materials)


[1] T. M. Tuttle, S. Jarosek, E. B. Habermann et al., "Increasing rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among patients with ductal carcinoma in situ," Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 1362-1367, 2009.

[2] E. B. Habermann, A. Abbott, H. M. Parsons, B. A. Virnig, W. B. Al-Refaie, and T. M. Tuttle, "Are mastectomy rates really increasing in the United States?" Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 28, no. 21, pp. 3437-3441, 2010.

[3] V. Murthy and R. S. Chamberlain, "Prophylactic mastectomy in patients at high risk: Is there a role for sentinel lymph node biopsy?" Clinical Breast Cancer, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 180-187, 2013.

[4] A. C. Antoniou, W. D. Foulkes, and M. Tischkowitz, "Breast-cancer risk in families with mutations in PALB2: The authors reply," The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 371, no. 17, pp. 1651-1652, 2014.

[5] R. Wooster and B. L. Weber, "Breast and ovarian cancer," The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 348, no. 23, pp. 2339-2347, 2003.

[6] D. G. Evans, J. Wisely, T. Clancy et al., "Longer term effects of the Angelina Jolie effect: Increased risk-reducing mastectomy rates in BRCA carriers and other high-risk women," Breast Cancer Research, vol. 17, no. 1, article no. 143, 2015.

[7] L. C. Hartmann and N. M. Lindor, "The role of risk-reducing surgery in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer," The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 374, no. 5, pp. 454-468, 2016.

[8] X. Li, R. You, X. Wang et al., "Effectiveness of prophylactic surgeries in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers: A meta-analysis and systematic review," Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 22, no. 15, pp. 3971-3981, 2016.

[9] L. Lostumbo, N. E. Carbine, and J. Wallace, "Prophylactic mastectomy for the prevention of breast cancer," Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 11, Article ID CD002748, 2010.

[10] A. Burger, D. Thurtle, S. Owen et al., "Sentinel lymph node biopsy for risk-reducing mastectomy," The Breast Journal, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 529-532, 2013.

[11] C. L. Miller, M. C. Specht, M. N. Skolny et al., "Sentinel lymph node biopsy at the time of mastectomy does not increase the risk of lymphedema: Implications for prophylactic surgery," Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 135, no. 3, pp. 781-789, 2012.

[12] L. G. Wilke, L. M. McCall, K. E. Posther et al., "Surgical complications associated with sentinel lymph node biopsy: Results from a prospective international cooperative group trial," Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 491-500, 2006.

[13] A. Fleissig, L. J. Fallowfield, C. I. Langridge et al., "Postoperative arm morbidity and quality of life. Results of the ALMANAC randomised trial comparing sentinel node biopsy with standard axillary treatment in the management of patients with early breast cancer," Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 279-293, 2006.

[14] A. Lucci, L. M. McCall, P. D. Beitsch et al., "Surgical complications associated with sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) plus axillary lymph node dissection compared with SLND alone in the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group trial Z0011," Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 25, no. 24, pp. 3657-3663, 2007.

[15] McLaughlin, "Prevalence of lymphedema in women with breast cancer 5 years after sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary dissection: Objective measurements (Journal of Clinical Oncology (2008) 26 (5213-5219))," Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 28, no. 10, p. 1808, 2010.

[16] V. Nagaraja, S. Edirimanne, and G. D. Eslick, "Is sentinel lymph node biopsy necessary in patients undergoing prophylactic mastectomy? a systematic review and meta-analysis," The Breast Journal, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 158-165, 2016.

[17] I. A. Czyszczon, L. Roland, and S. Sahoo, "Routine prophylactic sentinel lymph node biopsy is not indicated in women undergoing prophylactic mastectomy," Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 105, no. 7, pp. 650-654, 2012.

[18] W.-B. Zhou, X.-A. Liu, J.-C. Dai, and S. Wang, "Meta-analysis of sentinel lymph node biopsy at the time of prophylactic mastectomy of the breast," Canadian Journal of Surgery, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 300-306, 2011.

[19] J. C. Boughey, J. N. Cormier, Y. Xing et al., "Decision analysis to assess the efficacy of routine sentinel lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing prophylactic mastectomy," Cancer, vol. 110, no. 11, pp. 2542-2550, 2007.

[20] E. L. Dupont, M. A. Kuhn, C. McCann, C. Salud, J. L. Spanton, and C. E. Cox, "The role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in women undergoing prophylactic mastectomy," The American Journal of Surgery, vol. 180, no. 4, pp. 274-277, 2000.

[21] C. Laronga, M. C. Lee, K. P. McGuire et al., "Indications for Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in the Setting of Prophylactic Mastectomy," Journal of the American College of Surgeons, vol. 209, no. 6, pp. 746-752, 2009.

[22] D. Black, M. Specht, J. M. Lee et al., "Detecting occult malignancy in prophylactic mastectomy: Preoperative MRI versus sentinel lymph node biopsy," Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 2477-2484, 2007.

[23] A. Soran, J. Falk, M. Bonaventura, D. Keenan, G. Ahrendt, and R. Johnson, "Is routine sentinel lymph node biopsy indicated in women undergoing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy? Magee-Womens Hospital experience," Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 646-651, 2007.

[24] T. A. King, A. Ganaraj, J. V Fey et al., "Cytokeratin-positive cells in sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer are not random events: Experience in patients undergoing prophylactic mastectomy," Cancer, vol. 101, no. 5, pp. 926-933, 2004.

[25] P. W. Bunting, A. E. Cyr, F. Gao, and J. A. Margenthaler, "Sentinel lymph node biopsy during prophylactic mastectomy: Is there a role?" Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 109, no. 8, pp. 747-750, 2014.

[26] J. C. Boughey, N. Khakpour, F. Meric-Bernstam et al., "Selective use of sentinel lymph node surgery during prophylactic mastectomy," Cancer, vol. 107, no. 7, pp. 1440-1447, 2006.

[27] National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology, "Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis," breast-screening.pdf.

[28] National institue for Health and Care Excellence, "Clinical guideline on Familial breast cancer: classification, care and managing breast cancer and related risks in people with a family history of breast cancer," 2013, guidance/cg164.

[29] V. Freitas, P. Crystal, S. R. Kulkarni et al., "The value of breast MRI in high-risk patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer to exclude invasive disease in the contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: Is there a role to choose wisely patients for sentinel node biopsy?" Cancer Medicine, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 1031-1036, 2016.

[30] S. A. McLaughlin, M. Stempel, E. A. Morris, L. Liberman, and T. A. King, "Can magnetic resonance imaging be used to select patients for sentinel lymph node biopsy in prophylactic mastectomy?" Cancer, vol. 112, no. 6, pp. 1214-1221, 2008.

[31] N. K. Kuwajerwala, N. S. Dekhne, P. A. Pentiak et al., "Sentinel lymph node biopsy in contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: are we overtreating? Experience at a tertiary care hospital," Clinical Breast Cancer, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 287-291, 2013.

[32] S. M. Nasser, S. G. Smith, and A. B. Chagpar, "The role of sentinel node biopsy in women undergoing prophylactic mastectomy," Journal of Surgical Research, vol. 164, no. 2, pp. 188192, 2010.

Sara Camara [ID], (1) Daniela Pereira, (2) Saudade Andre, (2) Beatriz Mira, (3) Fatima Vaz, (3) Rodrigo Oom, (4) Jose Carlos Marques, (5) Joao Leal de Faria, (4) Catarina Rodrigues dos Santos (4)

(1) Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Hospital Dr. Nelio Mendonca, Avenida Luis de Camoes, No. 57, 9004-514 Funchal, Portugal

(2) Department of Pathology, Instituto Portugues de Oncologia Francisco Gentil (IPOLFG), Lisbon, Portugal

(3) Department of Breast Cancer Risk Evaluation Clinic and Department of Medical Oncology, Instituto Portugues de Oncologia Francisco Gentil (IPOLFG), Lisbon, Portugal

(4) Department of Surgical Oncology, Instituto Portugues de Oncologia Francisco Gentil (IPOLFG), Lisbon, Portugal

(5) Radiology Department, Instituto Portugues de Oncologia Francisco Gentil (IPOLFG), Lisbon, Portugal

Correspondence should be addressed to Sara Camara;

Received 16 September 2017; Accepted 26 November 2017; Published 1 January 2018

Academic Editor: Vladimir F. Semiglazov

Caption: Figure 1: Patients admitted to prophylactic breast surgery ((1) including prophylactic mastectomy of the remnant breast).
Table 1: Descriptive analysis of the prophylactic mastectomy

Patient characteristics                           Number of      %

                                                  (N = 57)

Age (years), median (IQR)                         43.8 (37-51)
BRCA mutation
  (i) BRCA1                                       25             43
  (ii) BRCA2                                      32             57
MRI evaluation prior to surgery                   47             82

                                                  Number of
Surgery description                               mastectomies   %

                                                  (N = 80)
Breast: total mastectomy                                         100
  (i) Type of prophylactic surgery
  Total mastectomy                                4              5
  Skin (nipple) sparing mastectomy               76             95
  (ii) Type of reconstruction
  Latissimus dorsi flap and definitive breast     54             68
  Subpectoral breast implant or tissue expander   25             31
  Transverse rectus abdominis muscle flap         1              1
  (i) Sentinel lymph node biopsy                  15             19%

IQR: interquartile range.

Table 2: Description of occult malignancy cases (N = 4).

                        Case number 1           Case number 2

Age (on the day of      34 years                41 years

Genetic risk            BRCA1                   BRCA1
Surgery indication      Prophylactic +          Prophylactic +
                        therapeutic             therapeutic

Breast cancer           (i) Invasive, not       (i) Invasive, not
characteristics         otherwise specified,    otherwise specified
(therapeutic side or    histologic grade 2      carcinoma, histologic
breast cancer in the    (ii) Estrogen           grade 2
past)                   receptor 100%.          (ii) Triple negative
                        Progesterone receptor   (iii) cTINO
                        10% Cerb2 negative      (iv) pT2N0(sn)
                        (iii) cTINO
                        (iv) pTlcNO(sn)

Mammography/            No findings             No findings
MRI (prophylactic       BI-RADS 2               BI-RADS 2
Time interval from      103 days                84 days
MRI to prophylactic
Occult carcinoma        Ductal carcinoma in     Ductal carcinoma in
histological findings   situ (6 mm)             situ (10 mm)

Sentinel lymph node     Not done                Not done
Follow-up               (i) 24 months           (i) 63 months
                        (ii) No local or        (ii) No local or
                        distant recurrence      distant recurrence

                        Case number 3           Case number 4

Age (on the day of      40 years                32 years

Genetic risk            BRCA2                   BRCA1
Surgery indication      Bilateral               Contralateral
                        prophylactic            prophylactic

Breast cancer                                   2 years before
characteristics                                 prophylactic
(therapeutic side or                            mastectomy(i)
breast cancer in the                            Invasive not
past)                                           otherwise specified
                                                carcinoma, histologic
                                                grade 3
                                                (ii) Triple negative
                                                (iii) cT3Nl
                                                (iv) Neoadjuvant
                                                chemotherapy. Radical
                                                Radiotherapy (unknown
                                                pathological response
                                                to chemotherapy)
                                                Stable asymmetry
                                                Contraindication for
Mammography/            Dense pattern
MRI (prophylactic       BI-RADS 2
side)                   (bilaterally)
Time interval from      97 days                 --
MRI to prophylactic
Occult carcinoma        Lobular microinvasive   Invasive, not
histological findings   and lobular in situ     otherwise specified
                        multifocal              (2 mm)
                        Estrogen receptor in    Estrogen and
                        in situ                 progesterone
                        component-positive      receptor-negative
Sentinel lymph node     Not done                Not done
Follow-up               (i) 30 months           (i) 29 months
                        (ii) No local or        (ii) No local or
                        distant recurrence      distant recurrence

BI-RADS: Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System Classification.
COPYRIGHT 2018 COPYRIGHT 2010 SAGE-Hindawi Access to Research
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Research Article
Author:Camara, Sara; Pereira, Daniela; Andre, Saudade; Mira, Beatriz; Vaz, Fatima; Oom, Rodrigo; Marques, J
Publication:International Journal of Breast Cancer
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:4EUPR
Date:Jan 1, 2018
Previous Article:Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy: Are We Ready to Individualize Radiation?
Next Article:Characteristics and Determinants of Patients Discontinuation of Breast Cancer Follow-Up Care at the Radiation Oncology Department, University College...

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters