BACKGROUND: With increasing frequency, breast cancer patients and clinicians are questioning the need for completion axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in the setting of a positive sentinel lymph node (SLN). We previously developed a nomogram to estimate the likelihood of residual disease in the axilla after a positive SLN biopsy result. In this study, we compared the predictions of clinical experts with those generated by the nomogram and evaluated the ability of the nomogram to change clinicians' behavior. METHODS: Pathologic features of the primary tumor and SLN metastases of 33 patients who underwent completion ALND were presented to 17 breast cancer specialists. Their predictions for each patient were recorded and compared with results from our nomogram. Subsequently, clinicians were presented with clinical information for eight patients and asked whether they would perform a completion ALND before and after being presented with the nomogram prediction. RESULTS: The predictive model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of .72 when applied to the test data set of 33 patients. In comparison, the clinicians as a group were associated with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of .54 (P < .01 vs. nomogram). With regard to performing a completion ALND, providing nomogram results did not alter surgical planning. CONCLUSIONS: Our predictive model seemed to substantially outperform clinical experts. Despite this, clinicians were unlikely to change their surgical plan based on nomogram results. It seems that most clinicians can improve their predictive ability by using the nomogram to predict the likelihood of additional non-SLN metastases in a woman with a positive SLN biopsy result.
BACKGROUND: With increasing frequency, breast cancerpatients and clinicians are questioning the need for completion axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in the setting of a positive sentinel lymph node (SLN). We previously developed a nomogram to estimate the likelihood of residual disease in the axilla after a positive SLN biopsy result. In this study, we compared the predictions of clinical experts with those generated by the nomogram and evaluated the ability of the nomogram to change clinicians' behavior. METHODS: Pathologic features of the primary tumor and SLN metastases of 33 patients who underwent completion ALND were presented to 17 breast cancer specialists. Their predictions for each patient were recorded and compared with results from our nomogram. Subsequently, clinicians were presented with clinical information for eight patients and asked whether they would perform a completion ALND before and after being presented with the nomogram prediction. RESULTS: The predictive model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of .72 when applied to the test data set of 33 patients. In comparison, the clinicians as a group were associated with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of .54 (P < .01 vs. nomogram). With regard to performing a completion ALND, providing nomogram results did not alter surgical planning. CONCLUSIONS: Our predictive model seemed to substantially outperform clinical experts. Despite this, clinicians were unlikely to change their surgical plan based on nomogram results. It seems that most clinicians can improve their predictive ability by using the nomogram to predict the likelihood of additional non-SLN metastases in a woman with a positive SLN biopsy result.
Authors: Allen S Ho; Lu Wang; Frank L Palmer; Changhong Yu; Arnbjorn Toset; Snehal Patel; Michael W Kattan; R Michael Tuttle; Ian Ganly Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Giovanni Lughezzani; Alberto Briganti; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Michael W Kattan; Francesco Montorsi; Shahrokh F Shariat; Andrew J Vickers Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-08-06 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Supriya Gupta; Jennifer Waller; Jimmy Brown; Yolanda Elam; James V Rawson; Darko Pucar Journal: Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2019-08-16
Authors: Jarrod E Dalton; David A Zidar; Belinda L Udeh; Manesh R Patel; Jesse D Schold; Neal V Dawson Journal: Med Care Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Shahrokh F Shariat; Michael W Kattan; Andrew J Vickers; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Peter T Scardino Journal: Future Oncol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.404
Authors: J L Fougo; M Afonso; F Senhorães Senra; T Dias; C Leal; C Araújo; M Dinis-Ribeiro Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Aaron A Laviana; Zhiguo Zhao; Li-Ching Huang; Tatsuki Koyama; Ralph Conwill; Karen Hoffman; Michael Goodman; Ann S Hamilton; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Lisa E Paddock; Antoinette Stroup; Matthew R Cooperberg; Mia Hashibe; Brock B O'Neil; Sherrie H Kaplan; Sheldon Greenfield; David F Penson; Daniel A Barocas Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-02-22 Impact factor: 20.096