Matrai, Z. (Zoltan)

Filtering

2018 - 201912020 - 20211

Settings

Author search.filters.isAuthorOfPublication.90eeaabd-2099-4ec6-83f7-d0ee315aff80

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Oncoplastic Breast Consortium consensus conference on nipple-sparing mastectomy
    (Springer, 2018) Blohmer, J.U. (Jens Uwe); Allweis, T.M. (Tanir M.); Fehr, M.K. (Mathias K.); Reitsamer, R. (Roland); Cardoso, M.J. (Maria Joao); Gouveia, P.F. (Pedro F.); Landin, J. (Julia); Olsha, O. (Oded); Urban, C. (Cicero); Ritter, M. (Mathilde); Hoffmann, J. (Jürgen); Brenelli, F. (Frabicio); Fulco, I. (Ilario); Paulinelli, R.R. (Regis Resende); Pusic, A.L. (Andrea L.); Kurzeder, C. (Christian); Catanuto, G. (Giuseppe); Bjelic-Radisic, V. (Vesna); Romics, L. (Lazslo); Farhadi, J. (Jian); Heil, J. (Jörg); Günthert, A. (Andreas); Tausch, C. (Cristoph); Tansley, A. (Anne); Galimberti, V. (Viviana); Weber, W.P. (Walter); Hadar, T. (Tal); Harder, Y. (Yves); Svensjö, T. (Tor); Hauser, N. (Nik); Biazus, J. (Jorge); Knauer, M. (Michael); Ganz-Blättler, U. (Ursula); Matrai, Z. (Zoltan); Bucher, S. (Sussane); Mechera, R. (Robert); Steffens, D. (Daniel); Kovacs, T. (Tibor); Meani, F. (Francesco); Lohsiriwat, V. (Visnu); Koller, R. (Rupert); Saccilotto, R. (Ramon); Kappos, E.A. (Elisabeth A.); Fitzal, F. (Florian); Sacchini, V. (Virgilio); Dubsky, P. (Peter); Barry, M. (Mitchel); Montagna, G. (Giacomo); Gentilini, O. (Oreste); Schwab, F.D. (Fabianne D.); Boniface, J. (Jana) de; Gnant, M. (Michael); Soysal, S.D. (Savas D.); El‑Tamer, M. (Mahmoud); Zeindler, J. (Jasmin); Haug, M. (Martin); Wyld, L. (Lynda); Rubio, I.T. (Isabel T.)
    Purpose Indications for nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) have broadened to include the risk reducing setting and locally advanced tumors, which resulted in a dramatic increase in the use of NSM. The Oncoplastic Breast Consortium consensus conference on NSM and immediate reconstruction was held to address a variety of questions in clinical practice and research based on published evidence and expert panel opinion. Methods The panel consisted of 44 breast surgeons from 14 countries across four continents with a background in gynecology, general or reconstructive surgery and a practice dedicated to breast cancer, as well as a patient advocate. Panelists presented evidence summaries relating to each topic for debate during the in-person consensus conference. The iterative process in question development, voting, and wording of the recommendations followed the modified Delphi methodology. Results Consensus recommendations were reached in 35, majority recommendations in 24, and no recommendations in the remaining 12 questions. The panel acknowledged the need for standardization of various aspects of NSM and immediate reconstruction. It endorsed several oncological contraindications to the preservation of the skin and nipple. Furthermore, it recommended inclusion of patients in prospective registries and routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Considerable heterogeneity in breast reconstruction practice became obvious during the conference. Conclusions In case of conflicting or missing evidence to guide treatment, the consensus conference revealed substantial disagreement in expert panel opinion, which, among others, supports the need for a randomized trial to evaluate the safest and most efficacious reconstruction techniques.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Surgical management of the axilla in clinically node-positive breast cancer patients converting to clinical node negativity through neoadjuvant chemotherapy: current status, knowledge gaps, and rationale for the EUBREAST-03 AXSANA study
    (MDPI, 2021) Banys-Paluchowski, M. (Maggie); Gasparri, M.L. (Maria Luisa); Boniface, J. (Jana) de; Gentilini, O. (Oreste); Stickeler, E. (Elmar); Hartmann, S. (Steffi); Thill, M. (Marc); Rubio, I.T. (Isabel T.); Di-Micco, R. (Rosa); Bonci, E.A. (Eduard-Alexandru); Niinikoski, L. (Laura); Kontos, M. (Michalis); Karadeniz-Cakmak, G. (Guldeniz); Hauptmann, M. (Michael); Peintinger, F. (Florentia); Pinto, D. (David); Matrai, Z. (Zoltan); Murawa, D. (Dawid); Kadayaprath, G. (Geeta); Dostalek, L. (Lukas); Nina, H. (Helidon); Krivorotko, P. (Petr); Classe, J.M. (Jean-Marc); Schlichting, E. (Ellen); Appelgren, M. (Matilda); Paluchowski, P. (Peter); Solbach, C. (Christine); Blohmer, J.U. (Jens Uwe); Kühn, T. Thorsten)
    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).