Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/16678
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Type: Journal article
Title: Participation in the RACS sentinel node biopsy versus axillary clearance trial
Author: Wetzig, N.
Gill, P.
Ung, O.
Collins, J.
Kollias, J.
Gillett, D.
Gebski, V.
Greig, C.
Ray, A.
Stockler, M.
Citation: ANZ Journal of Surgery, 2005; 75(3):98-100
Publisher: Blackwell Science Asia
Issue Date: 2005
ISSN: 1445-1433
1445-2197
Statement of
Responsibility: 
Neil R Wetzig, P. Grantley Gill, Owen Ung, John Collins, James Kollias, David Gillett, Val Gebski, Caroline Greig, Adam Ray and Martin Stockler for the RACS SNAC Group (2005) Participation in the RACS Sentinel Node Biopsy Versus Axillary Clearance Trial
Abstract: Background: The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) SNAC trial is a randomized controlled trial of sentinel node biopsy (SNB) versus axillary clearance (AC). It opened in May 2001 and is recruiting rapidly with good acceptance by consumers. Methods: A study of eligibility and treatment choices was conducted between November 2001 and September 2002 for women presenting with early breast cancer to 10 centres participating in the trial. Results: More than half of the 622 women (54%) were ineligible for trial entry because they had large (> 3 cm) or multicentric cancers. Participation was offered to 92% of eligible women and was taken up by 63%. The commonest reason for not participating was the desire to choose treatment rather than have it randomly allocated. Despite this there is a great acceptance of clinical trials because very few women (4% of those eligible) gave ‘lack of interest in clinical trials’ as the reason for non-participation. Few women who declined trial participation chose to have SNB alone (4.5% of those eligible). Conclusion: Sentinel node biopsy may become the standard of care for managing small breast cancers, but a significant number of patients will still require or choose axillary dissection. Results from large randomized trials are needed to determine the relative benefits and harms of SNB compared with AC. Surgeons must carefully discuss options for management with their patients.
Keywords: Choice
Clinical trial
Eligibility
Sentinel node
Rights: Copyright status unknown
DOI: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2005.03310.x
Published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2005.03310.x
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest 6
Surgery publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.