Emin Yildirim1, Ugur Berberoglu. 1. Ankara Oncology Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. yildirimemin@yahoo.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We examined the relationship between different expressions of positive axillary lymph nodes (PN) and the outcomes of node-positive breast carcinoma patients to determine the best predictor(s) among these expressions and to assess whether anatomic high level involvement is an independent prognostic factor. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective study, the primary endpoints were distant recurrence (DR), locoregional recurrences (LRR), and disease-free survival (DFS). Univariate and multivariate prognostic factor analyses were carried out using survival and regression methods in the data of 704 patients with PN. RESULTS: In multivariate analysis, the number of PN, ratio of PN, log odds of PN, and level III (L-III) involvement, separately, were significant factors for DR in addition to age, tumor size, and lymphovascular invasion (LVI). In the final model including all expressions of nodal involvement, age (continuous P = 0.001; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.98; 95% confidence Interval [95% CI]: 0.96-0.99), tumor size (continuous: P < 0.0001; HR: 1.3; 95% CI, 1.2-1.5), LVI (yes vs. no: P = 0.005; HR: 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2), and ratio of PN (continuous: P = 0.02; HR: 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06) were the independent prognostic factors for DR. For LRR, ratio of PN (continuous: P = 0.001; HR: 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03) was the most important factor in addition to age (continuous: P = 0.02; HR: 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99) and tumor size (continuous: P = 0.04; HR: 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6). When patients were stratified by number categories of PN (1-3 vs. 4-9 vs. >/= 10), there was no difference between DFSs of patients with and without L-III involvement. In contrast, when patients were stratified by L-III involvement, DFSs according to the number categories were statistically different. CONCLUSIONS: Ratio of PN was more valuable than number of PN for predicting outcome in node-positive breast carcinoma patients. Level III involvement was not an independent prognostic indicator either for locoregional or for distant recurrences.
BACKGROUND: We examined the relationship between different expressions of positive axillary lymph nodes (PN) and the outcomes of node-positive breast carcinomapatients to determine the best predictor(s) among these expressions and to assess whether anatomic high level involvement is an independent prognostic factor. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective study, the primary endpoints were distant recurrence (DR), locoregional recurrences (LRR), and disease-free survival (DFS). Univariate and multivariate prognostic factor analyses were carried out using survival and regression methods in the data of 704 patients with PN. RESULTS: In multivariate analysis, the number of PN, ratio of PN, log odds of PN, and level III (L-III) involvement, separately, were significant factors for DR in addition to age, tumor size, and lymphovascular invasion (LVI). In the final model including all expressions of nodal involvement, age (continuous P = 0.001; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.98; 95% confidence Interval [95% CI]: 0.96-0.99), tumor size (continuous: P < 0.0001; HR: 1.3; 95% CI, 1.2-1.5), LVI (yes vs. no: P = 0.005; HR: 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2), and ratio of PN (continuous: P = 0.02; HR: 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06) were the independent prognostic factors for DR. For LRR, ratio of PN (continuous: P = 0.001; HR: 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03) was the most important factor in addition to age (continuous: P = 0.02; HR: 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99) and tumor size (continuous: P = 0.04; HR: 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6). When patients were stratified by number categories of PN (1-3 vs. 4-9 vs. >/= 10), there was no difference between DFSs of patients with and without L-III involvement. In contrast, when patients were stratified by L-III involvement, DFSs according to the number categories were statistically different. CONCLUSIONS: Ratio of PN was more valuable than number of PN for predicting outcome in node-positive breast carcinomapatients. Level III involvement was not an independent prognostic indicator either for locoregional or for distant recurrences.
Authors: T Kuehn; W Klauss; M Darsow; S Regele; F Flock; C Maiterth; R Dahlbender; I Wendt; R Kreienberg Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Joseph Ragaz; Ivo A Olivotto; John J Spinelli; Norman Phillips; Stewart M Jackson; Kenneth S Wilson; Margaret A Knowling; Christopher M L Coppin; Lorna Weir; Karen Gelmon; Nhu Le; Ralph Durand; Andrew J Coldman; Mohamed Manji Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-01-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: M Overgaard; M B Jensen; J Overgaard; P S Hansen; C Rose; M Andersson; C Kamby; M Kjaer; C C Gadeberg; B B Rasmussen; M Blichert-Toft; H T Mouridsen Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-05-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Günther Gruber; Marco Bonetti; M Laura Nasi; Karen N Price; Monica Castiglione-Gertsch; Carl-Magnus Rudenstam; Stig B Holmberg; Jurij Lindtner; Rastko Golouh; John Collins; Diana Crivellari; Antonino Carbone; Beat Thürlimann; Edda Simoncini; Martin F Fey; Richard D Gelber; Alan S Coates; Aron Goldhirsch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A Katz; T A Buchholz; H Thames; C D Smith; M D McNeese; R Theriault; S E Singletary; E A Strom Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
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: San-Gang Wu; Yan Wang; Juan Zhou; Jia-Yuan Sun; Feng-Yan Li; Huan-Xin Lin; Zhen-Yu He Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2015-01-15 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: D Rohan Jeyarajah; Amit Khithani; Veeraiah Siripurapu; Elizabeth Liu; Ashley Thomas; A Joe Saad Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 3.647