Literature DB >> 22344558

High risk of non-sentinel node metastases in a group of breast cancer patients with micrometastases in the sentinel node.

Tove Filtenborg Tvedskov1, Maj-Britt Jensen, Ida Marie Lisse, Bent Ejlertsen, Eva Balslev, Niels Kroman.   

Abstract

Axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in breast cancer patients with positive sentinel nodes is under debate. We aimed to establish two models to predict non-sentinel node (NSN) metastases in patients with micrometastases or isolated tumor cells (ITC) in sentinel nodes, to guide the decision for ALND. A total of 1,577 breast cancer patients with micrometastases and 304 with ITC in sentinel nodes, treated by sentinel lymph node dissection and ALND in 2002-2008 were identified in the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group database. Risk of NSN metastases was calculated according to clinicopathological variables in a logistic regression analysis. We identified tumor size, proportion of positive sentinel nodes, lymphovascular invasion, hormone receptor status and location of tumor in upper lateral quadrant of the breast as risk factors for NSN metastases in patients with micrometastases. A model based on these risk factors identified 5% of patients with a risk of NSN metastases on nearly 40%. The model was however unable to identify a subgroup of patients with a very low risk of NSN metastases. Among patients with ITC, we identified tumor size, age and proportion of positive sentinel nodes as risk factors. A model based on these risk factors identified 32% of patients with risk of NSN metastases on only 2%. Omission of ALND would be acceptable in this group of patients. In contrast, ALND may still be beneficial in the subgroup of patients with micrometastases and a high risk of NSN metastases.
Copyright © 2012 UICC.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22344558     DOI: 10.1002/ijc.27499

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  6 in total

1.  Regional Disease Control in Selected Patients with Sentinel Lymph Node Involvement and Omission of Axillary Lymph Node Dissection.

Authors:  Gábor Cserni; Róbert Maráz
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2015-02-04       Impact factor: 3.201

Review 2.  Locoregional treatment of early breast cancer with isolated tumor cells or micrometastases on sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Authors:  Agnès Tallet; Eric Lambaudie; Monique Cohen; Mathieu Minsat; Marie Bannier; Michel Resbeut; Gilles Houvenaeghel
Journal:  World J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-04-10

3.  In breast cancer patients sentinel lymph node metastasis characteristics predict further axillary involvement.

Authors:  Ildiko Illyes; Anna-Maria Tokes; Attila Kovacs; A Marcell Szasz; Bela A Molnar; Istvan A Molnar; Ilona Kaszas; Zsuzsanna Baranyak; Zsolt Laszlo; Istvan Kenessey; Janina Kulka
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2014-05-09       Impact factor: 4.064

4.  Multi-institutional comparison of non-sentinel lymph node predictive tools in breast cancer patients with high predicted risk of further axillary metastasis.

Authors:  Gábor Cserni; Rita Bori; Róbert Maráz; Marjut H K Leidenius; Tuomo J Meretoja; Paivi S Heikkila; Peter Regitnig; Gero Luschin-Ebengreuth; Janez Zgajnar; Andraz Perhavec; Barbara Gazic; György Lázár; Tibor Takács; András Vörös; Riccardo A Audisio
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2012-07-14       Impact factor: 3.201

5.  Prognostic significance of further axillary dissection in breast cancer patients with micrometastases & the number of micrometastases: a SEER population-based analysis.

Authors:  Liu Ying-Ying; Yu Tian-Jian; Liu Guang-Yu
Journal:  Future Sci OA       Date:  2018-04-23

6.  Validation of Six Nomograms for Predicting Non-sentinel Lymph Node Metastases in a Dutch Breast Cancer Population.

Authors:  Siem A Dingemans; Peter D de Rooij; Roos M van der Vuurst de Vries; Leo M Budel; Caroline M Contant; Anne E M van der Pool
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-09-14       Impact factor: 5.344

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.