G C Zhang1, Y F Zhang, F P Xu, X K Qian, Z B Guo, C Y Ren, M Yao. 1. Department of Breast Cancer, Cancer Center, Guangdong General Hospital and Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, PR China. ; Lester and Sue Smith Breast Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, U.S.A.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our retrospective study in breast cancer patients evaluated whether integrating subtype and pathologic complete response (pcr) information into axillary lymph node restaging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nac) adds significance to its prognostic values. METHODS: Patients included in the analysis had stage ii or iii disease, with post-nac axillary lymph node dissection (alnd), without sentinel lymph node biopsy before completion of nac, with definitive subtyping data and subtype-oriented adjuvant treatments. The ypN grading system was used to restage axillary lymph node status, and ypN0 was adjusted by pcr in both breast and axilla into ypN0(pcr) and ypN0(non-pcr). Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were performed. RESULTS: Among the 301 patients analyzed, 145 had tumours that were hormone receptor-positive (hr+) and negative for the human epidermal growth factor receptor (her2-), 101 had tumours that were positive for her2 (her2+), and 55 had tumours that were triple-negative. The rate of pcr in both breast and axilla was 11.7%, 43.6%, and 25.5% respectively for the 3 subtypes. Compared with the non-pcr patients, the pcr patients had better disease-free survival (dfs) and overall survival (os): p = 0.002 for dfs and p = 0.011 for os. In non-pcr patients, dfs and os were similar in the ypN0(non-pcr) and ypN1 subgroups, and in the ypN2 and ypN3 subgroups. We therefore grouped the ypN grading results into ypN0(pcr) (n = 75), ypN0- 1(non-pcr) (n = 175), and ypN2-3 (n = 51). In those groups, the 3-year dfs was 98%, 91%, and 56%, and the 3-year os was 100%, 91%, and 82% respectively. The differences in dfs and os between those three subgroups were significant (all p < 0.05 in paired comparisons). Multivariate Cox regression showed that subtype and ypN staging adjusted by pcr were the only two independent factors predicting dfs. CONCLUSIONS: Axillary lymph node status after nac, adjusted for pcr in breast and axilla, predicts differential dfs in patients without prior sentinel lymph node biopsy.
BACKGROUND: Our retrospective study in breast cancerpatients evaluated whether integrating subtype and pathologic complete response (pcr) information into axillary lymph node restaging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nac) adds significance to its prognostic values. METHODS:Patients included in the analysis had stage ii or iii disease, with post-nac axillary lymph node dissection (alnd), without sentinel lymph node biopsy before completion of nac, with definitive subtyping data and subtype-oriented adjuvant treatments. The ypN grading system was used to restage axillary lymph node status, and ypN0 was adjusted by pcr in both breast and axilla into ypN0(pcr) and ypN0(non-pcr). Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were performed. RESULTS: Among the 301 patients analyzed, 145 had tumours that were hormone receptor-positive (hr+) and negative for the humanepidermal growth factor receptor (her2-), 101 had tumours that were positive for her2 (her2+), and 55 had tumours that were triple-negative. The rate of pcr in both breast and axilla was 11.7%, 43.6%, and 25.5% respectively for the 3 subtypes. Compared with the non-pcr patients, the pcr patients had better disease-free survival (dfs) and overall survival (os): p = 0.002 for dfs and p = 0.011 for os. In non-pcr patients, dfs and os were similar in the ypN0(non-pcr) and ypN1 subgroups, and in the ypN2 and ypN3 subgroups. We therefore grouped the ypN grading results into ypN0(pcr) (n = 75), ypN0- 1(non-pcr) (n = 175), and ypN2-3 (n = 51). In those groups, the 3-year dfs was 98%, 91%, and 56%, and the 3-year os was 100%, 91%, and 82% respectively. The differences in dfs and os between those three subgroups were significant (all p < 0.05 in paired comparisons). Multivariate Cox regression showed that subtype and ypN staging adjusted by pcr were the only two independent factors predicting dfs. CONCLUSIONS: Axillary lymph node status after nac, adjusted for pcr in breast and axilla, predicts differential dfs in patients without prior sentinel lymph node biopsy.
Authors: Roman Rouzier; Charles M Perou; W Fraser Symmans; Nuhad Ibrahim; Massimo Cristofanilli; Keith Anderson; Kenneth R Hess; James Stec; Mark Ayers; Peter Wagner; Paolo Morandi; Chang Fan; Islam Rabiul; Jeffrey S Ross; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Lajos Pusztai Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-08-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: T Sørlie; C M Perou; R Tibshirani; T Aas; S Geisler; H Johnsen; T Hastie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; T Thorsen; H Quist; J C Matese; P O Brown; D Botstein; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-09-11 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: H M Kuerer; A A Sahin; K K Hunt; L A Newman; T M Breslin; F C Ames; M I Ross; A U Buzdar; G N Hortobagyi; S E Singletary Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: P L Fitzgibbons; D L Page; D Weaver; A D Thor; D C Allred; G M Clark; S G Ruby; F O'Malley; J F Simpson; J L Connolly; D F Hayes; S B Edge; A Lichter; S J Schnitt Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Harry D Bear; Stewart Anderson; Roy E Smith; Charles E Geyer; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Bernard Fisher; Ann M Brown; Andre Robidoux; Richard Margolese; Morton S Kahlenberg; Soonmyung Paik; Atilla Soran; D Lawrence Wickerham; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-04-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Cornelia Liedtke; Chafika Mazouni; Kenneth R Hess; Fabrice André; Attila Tordai; Jaime A Mejia; W Fraser Symmans; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Bryan Hennessy; Marjorie Green; Massimo Cristofanilli; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Lajos Pusztai Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-02-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Priya Rastogi; Stewart J Anderson; Harry D Bear; Charles E Geyer; Morton S Kahlenberg; André Robidoux; Richard G Margolese; James L Hoehn; Victor G Vogel; Shaker R Dakhil; Deimante Tamkus; Karen M King; Eduardo R Pajon; Mary Johanna Wright; Jean Robert; Soonmyung Paik; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-02-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Harold J Burstein; Lyndsay N Harris; Rebecca Gelman; Susan C Lester; Raquel A Nunes; Carolyn M Kaelin; Leroy M Parker; Leif W Ellisen; Irene Kuter; Michele A Gadd; Roger L Christian; Patricia Rae Kennedy; Virginia F Borges; Craig A Bunnell; Jerry Younger; Barbara L Smith; Eric P Winer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Audree B Tadros; Wei T Yang; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Gaiane M Rauch; Benjamin D Smith; Vicente Valero; Dalliah M Black; Anthony Lucci; Abigail S Caudle; Sarah M DeSnyder; Mediget Teshome; Carlos H Barcenas; Makesha Miggins; Beatriz E Adrada; Tanya Moseley; Rosa F Hwang; Kelly K Hunt; Henry M Kuerer Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Nataliya Babyshkina; Elena Malinovskaya; Stanislav Patalyak; Olga Bragina; Natalia Tarabanovskaya; Artem Doroshenko; Elena Slonimskaya; Vladimir Perelmuter; Nadejda Cherdyntseva Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 3.064