Literature DB >> 19349546

Comparison of models to predict nonsentinel lymph node status in breast cancer patients with metastatic sentinel lymph nodes: a prospective multicenter study.

Charles Coutant1, Camille Olivier, Eric Lambaudie, Eric Fondrinier, Fréderic Marchal, François Guillemin, Nathalie Seince, Véronique Thomas, Jean Levêque, Emmanuel Barranger, Emile Darai, Serge Uzan, Gilles Houvenaeghel, Roman Rouzier.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Several models have been developed to predict nonsentinel lymph node (non-SN) status in patients with breast cancer with sentinel lymph node (SN) metastasis. The purpose of our investigation was to compare available models in a prospective, multicenter study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a cohort of 561 positive-SN patients who underwent axillary lymph node dissection, we evaluated the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs), calibration, rates of false negatives (FN), and number of patients in the group at low risk for non-SN calculated from nine models. We also evaluated these parameters in the subgroup of patients with micrometastasis or isolated tumor cells (ITC) in the SN.
RESULTS: At least one non-SN was metastatic in 147 patients (26.2%). Only two of nine models had an AUC greater than 0.75. Three models were well calibrated. Two models yielded an FN rate less than 5%. Three models were able to assign more than a third of patients in the low-risk group. Overall, the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center nomogram and Tenon score outperform other methods for all patients, including the subgroup of patients with only SN micrometastases or ITC.
CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that all models do not perform equally, especially for the subgroup of patients with only micrometastasis or ITC in the SN. We point out available evaluation methods to assess their performance and provide guidance for clinical practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19349546     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.19.7418

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  57 in total

1.  Incorporation of sentinel lymph node metastasis size into a nomogram predicting nonsentinel lymph node involvement in breast cancer patients with a positive sentinel lymph node.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Kelly K Hunt; Judy C Boughey; Roland Bassett; Amy C Degnim; Robyn Harrell; Min Yi; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Merrick I Ross; Gildy V Babiera; Henry M Kuerer; Rosa F Hwang
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 2.  Head and neck sentinel lymph node biopsy: current state of the art.

Authors:  Philip Sloan
Journal:  Head Neck Pathol       Date:  2009-08-21

3.  Validation of online calculators to predict the non-sentinel lymph node status in sentinel lymph node-positive breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Satoru Tanaka; Nayuko Sato; Hiroya Fujioka; Yuko Takahashi; Kosei Kimura; Mitsuhiko Iwamoto
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2012-06-22       Impact factor: 2.549

4.  The appropriate axillary procedure after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer patients: the "Hôpital Tenon" score revisited. A two-institution study.

Authors:  I Barco; A García-Fernández; C Chabrera; M Fraile; E Vallejo; J M Lain; J Deu; S González; C González; E Veloso; J Torres; M Torras; L Cirera; A Pessarrodona; N Giménez; M García-Font
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2016-02-26       Impact factor: 3.405

5.  A logistic regression model predicting high axillary tumour burden in early breast cancer patients.

Authors:  I Barco; M García Font; A García-Fernández; N Giménez; M Fraile; J M Lain; E Vallejo; S González; L Canales; J Deu; M C Vidal; M Rodríguez-Carballeira; A Pessarrodona; C Chabrera
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2017-08-14       Impact factor: 3.405

6.  Risk of positive nonsentinel nodes in women with 1-2 positive sentinel nodes related to age and molecular subtype approximated by receptor status.

Authors:  Gary M Freedman; Barbara L Fowble; Tianyu Li; E Shelley Hwang; Naomi Schechter; Karthik Devarajan; Penny R Anderson; Elin R Sigurdson; Lori J Goldstein; Richard J Bleicher
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2014-05-26       Impact factor: 2.431

7.  Ultrasound-based radiomics score: a potential biomarker for the prediction of microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Hang-Tong Hu; Zhu Wang; Xiao-Wen Huang; Shu-Ling Chen; Xin Zheng; Si-Min Ruan; Xiao-Yan Xie; Ming-de Lu; Jie Yu; Jie Tian; Ping Liang; Wei Wang; Ming Kuang
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Sentinel node identification rate and nodal involvement in the EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial.

Authors:  Marieke E Straver; Philip Meijnen; Geertjan van Tienhoven; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Robert E Mansel; Jan Bogaerts; Nicole Duez; Luigi Cataliotti; Jean H G Klinkenbijl; Helen A Westenberg; Huub van der Mijle; Marko Snoj; Coen Hurkmans; Emiel J T Rutgers
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-03-19       Impact factor: 5.344

9.  Factors Influencing Non-sentinel Node Involvement in Sentinel Node Positive Patients and Validation of MSKCC Nomogram in Indian Breast Cancer Population.

Authors:  Naveen Padmanabhan; Muhamed Faizal Ayub; Khadher Hussain; Ann Kurien; Selvi Radhakrishna
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-12-05

10.  Gene expression profiling of breast cancer.

Authors:  Lajos Pusztai
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2009-12-18       Impact factor: 6.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.