OBJECTIVE: To determine the rates of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and axillary irradiation (AI) in patients with breast cancer and to identify the factors influencing them. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Routine performance of ALND in the treatment of breast cancer has become controversial. AI has been proposed as an alternative to ALND, and it has been suggested that AI in addition to ALND may decrease local failure in high-risk patients. METHODS: A joint study was conducted by the Commission on Cancer of the American College of Surgeons and the American College of Radiology. A total of 17,151 patients with stage I and II breast cancer treated at 819 institutions in 1994 were studied. RESULTS: A total of 15,992 patients underwent ALND (93%). The mean ages of patients who did and did not undergo ALND were 60.4 and 73.0 years. Univariate analysis demonstrated significantly decreased rates of ALND for women age 70 or older (86% vs. 97%), patients with clinical T1 a tumors (81% vs. 93%), grade I histology (90% vs. 95%), and patients with favorable tumor types (88% vs. 94%). The ALND rate did not vary between palpable and nonpalpable tumors. Multivariate analysis of variables affecting the rate of ALND identified type of surgery, age, tumor size, histology, and payer status as significant. A total of 889 patients received AI. Patients not undergoing ALND were more likely to receive AI (10% vs. 5%). A total of 1.6% of patients with no lymph node metastasis underwent AI, 8.9% of those with one to three positive nodes underwent AI, 24.0% of those with four to nine positive lymph nodes underwent AI, and 29.9% of those with > or = 10 positive lymph nodes underwent AI. Multivariate analysis of variables affecting the proportion of patients who received AI and had undergone ALND identified nodal status and type of surgery as significant. CONCLUSIONS: Axillary lymph node dissection continues to be routinely applied in the treatment of breast cancer, and AI remains underused in patients at high risk for local regional relapse.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the rates of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and axillary irradiation (AI) in patients with breast cancer and to identify the factors influencing them. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Routine performance of ALND in the treatment of breast cancer has become controversial. AI has been proposed as an alternative to ALND, and it has been suggested that AI in addition to ALND may decrease local failure in high-risk patients. METHODS: A joint study was conducted by the Commission on Cancer of the American College of Surgeons and the American College of Radiology. A total of 17,151 patients with stage I and II breast cancer treated at 819 institutions in 1994 were studied. RESULTS: A total of 15,992 patients underwent ALND (93%). The mean ages of patients who did and did not undergo ALND were 60.4 and 73.0 years. Univariate analysis demonstrated significantly decreased rates of ALND for women age 70 or older (86% vs. 97%), patients with clinical T1 a tumors (81% vs. 93%), grade I histology (90% vs. 95%), and patients with favorable tumor types (88% vs. 94%). The ALND rate did not vary between palpable and nonpalpable tumors. Multivariate analysis of variables affecting the rate of ALND identified type of surgery, age, tumor size, histology, and payer status as significant. A total of 889 patients received AI. Patients not undergoing ALND were more likely to receive AI (10% vs. 5%). A total of 1.6% of patients with no lymph node metastasis underwent AI, 8.9% of those with one to three positive nodes underwent AI, 24.0% of those with four to nine positive lymph nodes underwent AI, and 29.9% of those with > or = 10 positive lymph nodes underwent AI. Multivariate analysis of variables affecting the proportion of patients who received AI and had undergone ALND identified nodal status and type of surgery as significant. CONCLUSIONS: Axillary lymph node dissection continues to be routinely applied in the treatment of breast cancer, and AI remains underused in patients at high risk for local regional relapse.
Authors: S G Diab; S G Hilsenbeck; C de Moor; G M Clark; C K Osborne; P M Ravdin; R M Elledge Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J Ragaz; S M Jackson; N Le; I H Plenderleith; J J Spinelli; V E Basco; K S Wilson; M A Knowling; C M Coppin; M Paradis; A J Coldman; I A Olivotto Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1997-10-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M Overgaard; P S Hansen; J Overgaard; C Rose; M Andersson; F Bach; M Kjaer; C C Gadeberg; H T Mouridsen; M B Jensen; K Zedeler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1997-10-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J S Wong; A Recht; C J Beard; P M Busse; B Cady; J T Chaffey; S Come; S Fam; C Kaelin; T I Lingos; A J Nixon; L N Shulman; S Troyan; B Silver; J R Harris Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1997-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Igor Langer; Walter Richard Marti; Ulrich Guller; Holger Moch; Felix Harder; Daniel Oertli; Markus Zuber Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 12.969