PURPOSE: Traditionally, larger tumor size and increasing lymph node (LN) involvement have been considered independent predictors of increased breast cancer-specific mortality (BCSM). We sought to characterize the interaction between tumor size and LN involvement in determination of BCSM. In particular, we evaluated whether very small tumor size may predict for increased BCSM relative to larger tumors in patients with extensive LN involvement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registry data, we identified 50,949 female patients diagnosed between 1990 and 2002 with nonmetastatic T1/T2 invasive breast cancer treated with surgery and axillary LN dissection. Primary study variables were tumor size, degree of LN involvement, and their corresponding interaction term. Kaplan-Meier methods, adjusted Cox proportional hazards models with interaction terms, and a linear trend test across nodal categories were performed. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 99 months. In multivariable analysis, there was significant interaction between tumor size and LN involvement (P < .001). Using T1aN0 as reference, T1aN2+ conferred significantly higher BCSM compared with T1bN2+ (hazard ratio [HR], 20.66 v 12.53; P = .02). A similar pattern was seen among estrogen receptor (ER) -negative patients with T1aN2+ compared with T1bN2+ (HR, 24.16 v 12.67; P = .03), but not ER-positive patients (P = .52). The effect of very small tumor size on BCSM was intermediate among N1 cancers, between that of N0 and N2+ cancers. CONCLUSION: Very small tumors with four positive LNs may predict for higher BCSM compared with larger tumors. In extensive node-positive disease, very small tumor size may be a surrogate for biologically aggressive disease. These results should be validated in future database studies.
PURPOSE: Traditionally, larger tumor size and increasing lymph node (LN) involvement have been considered independent predictors of increased breast cancer-specific mortality (BCSM). We sought to characterize the interaction between tumor size and LN involvement in determination of BCSM. In particular, we evaluated whether very small tumor size may predict for increased BCSM relative to larger tumors in patients with extensive LN involvement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registry data, we identified 50,949 female patients diagnosed between 1990 and 2002 with nonmetastatic T1/T2 invasive breast cancer treated with surgery and axillary LN dissection. Primary study variables were tumor size, degree of LN involvement, and their corresponding interaction term. Kaplan-Meier methods, adjusted Cox proportional hazards models with interaction terms, and a linear trend test across nodal categories were performed. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 99 months. In multivariable analysis, there was significant interaction between tumor size and LN involvement (P < .001). Using T1aN0 as reference, T1aN2+ conferred significantly higher BCSM compared with T1bN2+ (hazard ratio [HR], 20.66 v 12.53; P = .02). A similar pattern was seen among estrogen receptor (ER) -negative patients with T1aN2+ compared with T1bN2+ (HR, 24.16 v 12.67; P = .03), but not ER-positive patients (P = .52). The effect of very small tumor size on BCSM was intermediate among N1 cancers, between that of N0 and N2+ cancers. CONCLUSION: Very small tumors with four positive LNs may predict for higher BCSM compared with larger tumors. In extensive node-positive disease, very small tumor size may be a surrogate for biologically aggressive disease. These results should be validated in future database studies.
Authors: Lisa A Newman; Kent A Griffith; Ismail Jatoi; Michael S Simon; Joseph P Crowe; Graham A Colditz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Donald A Berry; Kathleen A Cronin; Sylvia K Plevritis; Dennis G Fryback; Lauren Clarke; Marvin Zelen; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Andrei Y Yakovlev; J Dik F Habbema; Eric J Feuer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-10-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Yves Hüsemann; Jochen B Geigl; Falk Schubert; Piero Musiani; Manfred Meyer; Elke Burghart; Guido Forni; Roland Eils; Tanja Fehm; Gert Riethmüller; Christoph A Klein Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Olivia Pagani; Karen N Price; Richard D Gelber; Monica Castiglione-Gertsch; Stig B Holmberg; Jurij Lindtner; Beat Thürlimann; John Collins; Martin F Fey; Alan S Coates; Aron Goldhirsch Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2009-01-10 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Kathy S Albain; Joseph M Unger; John J Crowley; Charles A Coltman; Dawn L Hershman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-07-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Gregory Weitsman; Katherine Lawler; Muireann T Kelleher; James E Barrett; Paul R Barber; Eamon Shamil; Frederic Festy; Gargi Patel; Gilbert O Fruhwirth; Lufei Huang; Iain D C Tullis; Natalie Woodman; Enyinnaya Ofo; Simon M Ameer-Beg; Sheeba Irshad; John Condeelis; Cheryl E Gillett; Paul A Ellis; Borivoj Vojnovic; Anthony C C Coolen; Tony Ng Journal: Biochem Soc Trans Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 5.407
Authors: S A Narod; J Iqbal; A Jakubowska; T Huzarski; P Sun; C Cybulski; J Gronwald; T Byrski; J Lubinski Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 3.677