Literature DB >> 15316905

Intramammary lymph node metastases are an independent predictor of poor outcome in patients with breast carcinoma.

Jeannie Shen1, Kelly K Hunt, Nadeem Q Mirza, Savitri Krishnamurthy, S Eva Singletary, Henry M Kuerer, Funda Meric-Bernstam, Barry Feig, Merrick I Ross, Frederick C Ames, Gildy V Babiera.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Breast carcinoma with intramammary lymph node (intraMLN) metastases is considered to be Stage II disease, even in the absence of axillary lymph node involvement. Nonetheless, little is known regarding the clinical significance of intraMLN metastases. The goals of the current retrospective analysis were to elucidate the clinical relevance of intraMLN metastases and to assess the relation between such metastases and outcome in patients with breast carcinoma.
METHODS: One hundred ninety-six intraMLN specimens obtained between 1983 and 2003 were identified in the pathology database at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX); 130 of these specimens were obtained in association with a primary breast malignancy. Data on the clinical and pathologic features of these specimens were collected and evaluated on univariate and multivariate analysis for potential correlations with 5-year rates of disease-free survival (DFS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and overall survival (OS). The median follow-up duration was 36 months (range, 12-180 months).
RESULTS: The median age of the 130 patients in the current study was 53 years (range, 27-84 years). Twenty-four patients (18%) had intraMLNs that were identified preoperatively by either mammographic or sonographic methods; in the remaining 106 cases, intraMLNs were detected on pathologic examination of surgical breast specimens. IntraMLN metastases were found in 28% of all cases (n = 36). Most patients who had intraMLN metastases (81%) also had axillary metastases; however, isolated intraMLN metastases were documented in 6 patients (5%). Univariate analysis revealed that patients with intraMLN metastases (compared with all other patients) had poorer 5-year rates of DFS (54% vs. 89%; P = 0.001), DSS (66% vs. 90%; P = 0.001), and OS (64% vs. 88%; P = 0.004). Furthermore, multivariate analysis indicated that intraMLN involvement was an independent predictor of reduced DFS (hazard ratio, 2.33; P = 0.03), DSS (hazard ratio, 5.32; P = 0.002), and OS (hazard ratio, 3.22; P = 0.006).
CONCLUSIONS: The current retrospective analysis demonstrated that the presence of intraMLN metastases is an independent predictor of poor outcome in patients with breast carcinoma. Identification of an intraMLN on preoperative imaging should prompt further histopathologic assessment. Identification of malignant intraMLNs by lymphatic mapping may help to identify high-risk patients for whom further evaluation of the axillary lymph nodes is warranted despite otherwise clinically negative findings in the axilla. Copyright 2004 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15316905     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20515

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  15 in total

1.  Intramammary sentinel lymph node in patients with breast cancer: report of four cases.

Authors:  Yuko Kijima; Heiji Yoshinaka; Yoshikazu Uenosono; Yawara Funasako; Katsuhiko Ehi; Shigehiro Yanagita; Hideo Arima; Tsutomu Kozono; Takaaki Arigami; Shoji Natsugoe; Takashi Aikou
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2008-05-31       Impact factor: 2.549

2.  Is there any relationship between adc values of diffusion-weighted imaging and the histopathological prognostic factors of invasive ductal carcinoma?

Authors:  Hale Aydin; Bahar Guner; Isil Esen Bostanci; Zarife Melda Bulut; Bilgin Kadri Aribas; Lutfi Dogan; Mehmet Ali Gulcelik
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-01-12       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 3.  Diagnosis of a malignant intramammary node retrospectively aided by mastectomy specimen MRI-Is the search worth it? A case report and review of current literature.

Authors:  Abhishek Mahajan; Amar Udare; Tanuja Shet; Shashikant Juvekar; Meenakshi Thakur
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2013-07-17       Impact factor: 3.500

4.  Implication of an Intramammary Sentinel Lymph Node in Breast Cancer: Is This a True Sentinel Node? A Case Report.

Authors:  Takaaki Fujii; Reina Yajima; Asuka Matsumoto; Sayaka Yamaki; Nobuyuki Uchida; Soichi Tsutsumi; Takayuki Asao; Hiroyuki Kuwano
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2010-04-21       Impact factor: 2.860

5.  The clinical significance of metastatic breast carcinoma to intramammary lymph node.

Authors:  Thaer Khoury; Yisheng Fang; Rouzan Karabakhtsian; Mohamed Mokhtar Desouki; Anupma Nayak; Mathew Hanna; Souzan Sanati; Xuan Peng; Li Yan; Xiaoxian Li; Oluwole Fadare; Christine Ambrosone; Nashwan Jabbour; Carmelo Gaudioso
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2019-10-06       Impact factor: 2.431

6.  Human Tumor-Lymphatic Microfluidic Model Reveals Differential Conditioning of Lymphatic Vessels by Breast Cancer Cells.

Authors:  Jose M Ayuso; Max M Gong; Melissa C Skala; Paul M Harari; David J Beebe
Journal:  Adv Healthc Mater       Date:  2020-01-01       Impact factor: 9.933

7.  Lymphangiogenesis and lymphatic metastasis in breast cancer.

Authors:  Sophia Ran; Lisa Volk; Kelly Hall; Michael J Flister
Journal:  Pathophysiology       Date:  2009-12-24

8.  The sentinel node in breast cancer: an update.

Authors:  Conor D Collins
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2005-11-23       Impact factor: 3.909

9.  Intramammary sentinel lymph nodes: what is the clinical significance?

Authors:  Charles E Cox; John M Cox; Daniel Ramos; Tammi L Meade
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2008-03-06       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 10.  The sentinel node in breast cancer.

Authors:  Conor D Collins
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2008-10-04       Impact factor: 3.909

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.