OBJECTIVE: In the study, our aim was to evaluate the predictability of four different nomograms on non-sentinel lymph node metastases (NSLNM) in breast cancer (BC) patients with positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in a multi-center study. METHODS: We identified 607 patients who had a positive SLN biopsy and completion axillary lymph node dissection (CALND) at seven different BC treatment centers in Turkey. The BC nomograms developed by the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), Tenon Hospital, Cambridge University, and Stanford University were used to calculate the probability of NSLNM. Area under (AUC) Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve (ROC) was calculated for each nomogram and values greater than 0.70 were accepted as demonstrating good discrimination. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty-seven patients (287) of 607 patients (47.2%) had a positive axillary NSLNM. The AUC values were 0.705, 0.711, 0.730, and 0.582 for the MSKCC, Cambridge, Stanford, and Tenon models, respectively. On the multivariate analysis; overall metastasis size (OMS), lymphovascular invasion (LVI), and proportion of positive SLN to total SLN were found statistically significant. We created a formula to predict the NSLNM in our patient population and the AUC value of this formula was 0.8023. CONCLUSIONS: The MSKCC, Cambridge, and Stanford nomograms were good discriminators of NSLNM in SLN positive BC patients in this study. A newly created formula in this study needs to be validated in prospective studies in different patient populations. A nomogram to predict NSLNM in patients with positive SLN biopsy developed at one institution should be used with caution. Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: In the study, our aim was to evaluate the predictability of four different nomograms on non-sentinel lymph node metastases (NSLNM) in breast cancer (BC) patients with positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in a multi-center study. METHODS: We identified 607 patients who had a positive SLN biopsy and completion axillary lymph node dissection (CALND) at seven different BC treatment centers in Turkey. The BC nomograms developed by the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), Tenon Hospital, Cambridge University, and Stanford University were used to calculate the probability of NSLNM. Area under (AUC) Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve (ROC) was calculated for each nomogram and values greater than 0.70 were accepted as demonstrating good discrimination. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty-seven patients (287) of 607 patients (47.2%) had a positive axillary NSLNM. The AUC values were 0.705, 0.711, 0.730, and 0.582 for the MSKCC, Cambridge, Stanford, and Tenon models, respectively. On the multivariate analysis; overall metastasis size (OMS), lymphovascular invasion (LVI), and proportion of positive SLN to total SLN were found statistically significant. We created a formula to predict the NSLNM in our patient population and the AUC value of this formula was 0.8023. CONCLUSIONS: The MSKCC, Cambridge, and Stanford nomograms were good discriminators of NSLNM in SLN positive BC patients in this study. A newly created formula in this study needs to be validated in prospective studies in different patient populations. A nomogram to predict NSLNM in patients with positive SLN biopsy developed at one institution should be used with caution. Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Georg Sauer; Nicole Schneiderhan-Marra; Rainer Muche; Karin Koretz; Cornelia Kazmaier; Rolf Kreienberg; Thomas Joos; Helmut Deissler Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2011-04-24 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: İrfan Başoğlu; Muhammet Ferhat Çelik; Ahmet Cem Dural; Mustafa Gökhan Ünsal; Cevher Akarsu; Halil Fırat Baytekin; Selin Kapan; Halil Alış Journal: J Breast Health Date: 2015-10-01
Authors: Mila Donker; Geertjan van Tienhoven; Marieke E Straver; Philip Meijnen; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Robert E Mansel; Luigi Cataliotti; A Helen Westenberg; Jean H G Klinkenbijl; Lorenzo Orzalesi; Willem H Bouma; Huub C J van der Mijle; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Sanne C Veltkamp; Leen Slaets; Nicole J Duez; Peter W de Graaf; Thijs van Dalen; Andreas Marinelli; Herman Rijna; Marko Snoj; Nigel J Bundred; Jos W S Merkus; Yazid Belkacemi; Patrick Petignat; Dominic A X Schinagl; Corneel Coens; Carlo G M Messina; Jan Bogaerts; Emiel J T Rutgers Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Antonio Piñero; Manuel Canteras; Arancha Moreno; Francisco Vicente; Julia Giménez; Ana Tocino; Edelmiro Iglesias; Sergi Vidal-Sicart; Luzdivina Santamaría; Miguel Lorenzo; Manuel García; Diego Ramirez Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2012-07-25 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Levent Yeniay; Erdem Carti; Can Karaca; Osman Zekioglu; Ulkem Yararbas; Rasih Yilmaz; Murat Kapkac Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 2.860