David W Ollila1, Constance T Cirrincione2, Donald A Berry3, Lisa A Carey4, William M Sikov5, Clifford A Hudis6, Eric P Winer7, Mehra Golshan8. 1. Department of Surgery, University of North Carolina, at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. Electronic address: david_ollila@med.unc.edu. 2. Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. 3. Alliance Statistics and Data Center, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, University of North Carolina, at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. 5. Program in Women's Oncology, Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, Providence, RI; Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 7. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA. 8. Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Management of the axilla in stage II/III breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) is controversial. To understand current patterns of care, we collected axillary data from 2 NST trials: HER2-positive (Cancer and Leukemia Group B [CALGB] 40601) and triple-negative (CALGB 40603). STUDY DESIGN: Axillary evaluation pre- and post-NST was per the treating surgeon and could include sentinel node biopsy. Post-NST, node-positive patients were recommended to undergo axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). We report pre-NST histopathologic nodal evaluation and post-NST axillary surgical procedures with correlation to clinical and pathologic nodal status. RESULTS: Seven hundred and forty-two patients were treated, 704 had complete nodal data pre-NST and post-NST. Pre-NST, 422 (60%) of 704 patients underwent at least 1 procedure for axillary node evaluation (total of 468 procedures): fine needle aspiration (n = 234; 74% positive), core needle biopsy (n = 138; 72% positive), and sentinel node biopsy (n = 96; 33% positive). Pre-NST, 304 patients were considered node-positive. Post-NST, 304 of 704 patients (43%) underwent sentinel node biopsy; 44 were positive and 259 were negative (29 and 36 patients, respectively, had subsequent ALND). Three hundred and ninety-one (56%) patients went directly to post-NST ALND and 9 (1%) pre-NST node-positive patients had no post-NST axillary procedure. Post-NST, 170 (24%) of the 704 patients had residual axillary disease. Agreement between post-NST clinical and radiologic staging and post-NST histologic staging was strongest for node-negative (81%) and weaker for node-positive (N1 31%, N2 29%), with more than half of the clinically node-positive patients found to be pathologic negative (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest there is no widely accepted standard for axillary nodal evaluation pre-NST. Post-NST staging was highly concordant in patients with N0 disease, but poorly so in node-positive disease. Accurate methods are needed to identify post-NST patients without residual axillary disease to potentially spare ALND.
BACKGROUND: Management of the axilla in stage II/III breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) is controversial. To understand current patterns of care, we collected axillary data from 2 NST trials: HER2-positive (Cancer and Leukemia Group B [CALGB] 40601) and triple-negative (CALGB 40603). STUDY DESIGN: Axillary evaluation pre- and post-NST was per the treating surgeon and could include sentinel node biopsy. Post-NST, node-positive patients were recommended to undergo axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). We report pre-NST histopathologic nodal evaluation and post-NST axillary surgical procedures with correlation to clinical and pathologic nodal status. RESULTS: Seven hundred and forty-two patients were treated, 704 had complete nodal data pre-NST and post-NST. Pre-NST, 422 (60%) of 704 patients underwent at least 1 procedure for axillary node evaluation (total of 468 procedures): fine needle aspiration (n = 234; 74% positive), core needle biopsy (n = 138; 72% positive), and sentinel node biopsy (n = 96; 33% positive). Pre-NST, 304 patients were considered node-positive. Post-NST, 304 of 704 patients (43%) underwent sentinel node biopsy; 44 were positive and 259 were negative (29 and 36 patients, respectively, had subsequent ALND). Three hundred and ninety-one (56%) patients went directly to post-NST ALND and 9 (1%) pre-NST node-positive patients had no post-NST axillary procedure. Post-NST, 170 (24%) of the 704 patients had residual axillary disease. Agreement between post-NST clinical and radiologic staging and post-NST histologic staging was strongest for node-negative (81%) and weaker for node-positive (N1 31%, N2 29%), with more than half of the clinically node-positive patients found to be pathologic negative (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest there is no widely accepted standard for axillary nodal evaluation pre-NST. Post-NST staging was highly concordant in patients with N0 disease, but poorly so in node-positive disease. Accurate methods are needed to identify post-NST patients without residual axillary disease to potentially spare ALND.
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: J A van der Hage; C J van de Velde; J P Julien; M Tubiana-Hulin; C Vandervelden; L Duchateau Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-11-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Abigail S Caudle; Wei T Yang; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Daliah M Black; Rosa Hwang; Brian Hobbs; Kelly K Hunt; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Henry M Kuerer Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Viviana Galimberti; Bernard F Cole; Stefano Zurrida; Giuseppe Viale; Alberto Luini; Paolo Veronesi; Paola Baratella; Camelia Chifu; Manuela Sargenti; Mattia Intra; Oreste Gentilini; Mauro G Mastropasqua; Giovanni Mazzarol; Samuele Massarut; Jean-Rémi Garbay; Janez Zgajnar; Hanne Galatius; Angelo Recalcati; David Littlejohn; Monika Bamert; Marco Colleoni; Karen N Price; Meredith M Regan; Aron Goldhirsch; Alan S Coates; Richard D Gelber; Umberto Veronesi Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-03-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Judy C Boughey; Vera J Suman; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Gretchen M Ahrendt; Lee G Wilke; Bret Taback; A Marilyn Leitch; Henry M Kuerer; Monet Bowling; Teresa S Flippo-Morton; David R Byrd; David W Ollila; Thomas B Julian; Sarah A McLaughlin; Linda McCall; W Fraser Symmans; Huong T Le-Petross; Bruce G Haffty; Thomas A Buchholz; Heidi Nelson; Kelly K Hunt Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lisa A Carey; Donald A Berry; Constance T Cirrincione; William T Barry; Brandelyn N Pitcher; Lyndsay N Harris; David W Ollila; Ian E Krop; Norah Lynn Henry; Douglas J Weckstein; Carey K Anders; Baljit Singh; Katherine A Hoadley; Michael Iglesia; Maggie Chon U Cheang; Charles M Perou; Eric P Winer; Clifford A Hudis Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-11-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Janine M Simons; Thiemo J A van Nijnatten; Carmen C van der Pol; Paul J van Diest; Agnes Jager; David van Klaveren; Boen L R Kam; Marc B I Lobbes; Maaike de Boer; Cees Verhoef; Paul R A Sars; Harald J Heijmans; Els R M van Haaren; Wouter J Vles; Caroline M E Contant; Marian B E Menke-Pluijmers; Léonie H M Smit; Wendy Kelder; Marike Boskamp; Linetta B Koppert; Ernest J T Luiten; Marjolein L Smidt Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2022-09-07 Impact factor: 16.681