BACKGROUND: Single-institution data suggest that treatment with radiation and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) may be an appropriate alternative to mastectomy for T0N+ breast cancer. Population-based multi-institutional data supporting this approach are lacking. METHODS: The cause-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) of women with T0N+M0 ductal, lobular, or mixed breast cancer in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 1983 to 2006 were analyzed. Groups were defined as: 1) no ALND, mastectomy, or RT (observation); 2) ALND only; 3) mastectomy plus ALND with or without postmastectomy radiation (Mast); and 4) breast-conserving therapy (BCT) with ALND and radiation (BCT). RESULTS: In total, 750 of 770,030 patients with breast cancer had T0N+M0 disease (incidence, 0.10%), and 596 of those patients underwent ALND (79.5%). Patients who underwent Mast or BCT (n = 470) had a 10-year OS rate of 64.9% compared with 58.5% for patients who underwent ALND only (n = 126; P = .02) and 47.5% for patients who underwent observation only (n = 94; P = .04). The 10-year CSS rate was 75.7% for patients who underwent BCT versus 73.9% for patients who underwent Mast (P = .55). In multivariate analysis of CSS for patients who underwent Mast or BCT, the following factors were correlated with an unfavorable outcome: positive estrogen receptor status (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.96; P = .04), >/=10 positive lymph nodes (HR, 5.7; 95%CI, 2.4-13.4; P </= .01), and <10 resected lymph nodes (HR, 42.9; 95%CI, 1.2-7.1; P = .02). Mast did not improve CSS compared with BCT (HR, 1.09; 95%CI, 0.57-2.1; P = .79). CONCLUSIONS: Definitive locoregional treatment with either Mast or BCT improved the outcome of patients with T0N+breast cancer, and no difference in survival was observed between the treatments. Cancer 2010. (c) 2010 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: Single-institution data suggest that treatment with radiation and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) may be an appropriate alternative to mastectomy for T0N+ breast cancer. Population-based multi-institutional data supporting this approach are lacking. METHODS: The cause-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) of women with T0N+M0 ductal, lobular, or mixed breast cancer in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 1983 to 2006 were analyzed. Groups were defined as: 1) no ALND, mastectomy, or RT (observation); 2) ALND only; 3) mastectomy plus ALND with or without postmastectomy radiation (Mast); and 4) breast-conserving therapy (BCT) with ALND and radiation (BCT). RESULTS: In total, 750 of 770,030 patients with breast cancer had T0N+M0 disease (incidence, 0.10%), and 596 of those patients underwent ALND (79.5%). Patients who underwent Mast or BCT (n = 470) had a 10-year OS rate of 64.9% compared with 58.5% for patients who underwent ALND only (n = 126; P = .02) and 47.5% for patients who underwent observation only (n = 94; P = .04). The 10-year CSS rate was 75.7% for patients who underwent BCT versus 73.9% for patients who underwent Mast (P = .55). In multivariate analysis of CSS for patients who underwent Mast or BCT, the following factors were correlated with an unfavorable outcome: positive estrogen receptor status (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.96; P = .04), >/=10 positive lymph nodes (HR, 5.7; 95%CI, 2.4-13.4; P </= .01), and <10 resected lymph nodes (HR, 42.9; 95%CI, 1.2-7.1; P = .02). Mast did not improve CSS compared with BCT (HR, 1.09; 95%CI, 0.57-2.1; P = .79). CONCLUSIONS: Definitive locoregional treatment with either Mast or BCT improved the outcome of patients with T0N+breast cancer, and no difference in survival was observed between the treatments. Cancer 2010. (c) 2010 American Cancer Society.
Authors: G Vlastos; M E Jean; A N Mirza; N Q Mirza; H M Kuerer; F C Ames; K K Hunt; M I Ross; T A Buchholz; A U Buzdar; S E Singletary Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: J A van Dongen; A C Voogd; I S Fentiman; C Legrand; R J Sylvester; D Tong; E van der Schueren; P A Helle; K van Zijl; H Bartelink Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-07-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Claire L Buchanan; Elizabeth A Morris; Paige L Dorn; Patrick I Borgen; Kimberly J Van Zee Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2005-10-25 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Matthew M Poggi; David N Danforth; Linda C Sciuto; Sharon L Smith; Seth M Steinberg; David J Liewehr; Cynthia Menard; Marc E Lippman; Allen S Lichter; Rosemary M Altemus Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-08-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: B Fisher; C Redmond; R Poisson; R Margolese; N Wolmark; L Wickerham; E Fisher; M Deutsch; R Caplan; Y Pilch Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1989-03-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Damian P McCartan; Emily C Zabor; Monica Morrow; Kimberly J Van Zee; Mahmoud B El-Tamer Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Inaya Ahmed; Kavita Dharmarajan; Amy Tiersten; Ira Bleiweiss; Hank Schmidt; Sheryl Green; Richard L Bakst Journal: Case Rep Oncol Med Date: 2015-03-18
Authors: Sang Min Woo; Byung Ho Son; Jong Won Lee; Hee Jeong Kim; Jong Han Yu; Beom Seok Ko; Guiyun Sohn; Yu Ra Lee; Hanna Kim; Sei Hyun Ahn; Seung Hee Baek Journal: J Breast Cancer Date: 2013-12-31 Impact factor: 3.588
Authors: Melania Costantini; Rino Aldo Montella; Maria Paola Fadda; Giorgia Garganese; Alba Di Leone; Alejandro Martin Sanchez; Gianluca Franceschini; Pierluigi Maria Rinaldi Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2021-05-25