Justin M Mann1, Xian Wu2, Paul Christos2, Himanshu Nagar3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY. Electronic address: jum9094@nyp.org. 2. Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For clinical T1-2N0 breast cancer, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has been shown in American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011 to be sufficient for women with 1 to 2 positive sentinel lymph nodes with no added benefit for completion axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). Z0011 specified whole breast radiotherapy (RT) using standard tangential fields; however, later analysis showed variation in field design. We assessed nationwide practice patterns and examined factors associated with patients undergoing completion ALND and subsequent radiation field design. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with clinical T1-2N0 breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery, axillary staging, and whole breast RT in 2012 to 2013 were identified in the National Cancer Database. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to examine axillary management and RT, adjusting for demographic and clinicopathologic factors. RESULTS: Among 83,555 patients meeting criteria, 9.3% underwent upfront ALND, 75.8% underwent SLNB only, and 14.9% underwent SLNB with completion ALND. From 2012 to 2013, upfront SLNB increased from 90.1% to 91.4% (odds ratio, 1.14; P < .001). Among 9474 patients that underwent SLNB with 1 to 2 positive sentinel nodes, 31.2% received completion ALND. Among patients with 1 to 2 positive sentinel nodes, SLNB increased from 65.8% to 72.1% from 2012 to 2013 (P < .001). For patients with 1 to 2 positive lymph nodes that underwent SLNB only, 63.4% underwent breast RT, whereas 36.6% received breast and nodal RT. CONCLUSIONS: Nationwide practice patterns of axillary management vary. Despite an increasing rate of SLNB, many patients still receive upfront and completion ALND. Furthermore, there is significant variation in RT field design, and modern treatment guidelines are warranted for this patient population.
BACKGROUND: For clinical T1-2N0 breast cancer, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has been shown in American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011 to be sufficient for women with 1 to 2 positive sentinel lymph nodes with no added benefit for completion axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). Z0011 specified whole breast radiotherapy (RT) using standard tangential fields; however, later analysis showed variation in field design. We assessed nationwide practice patterns and examined factors associated with patients undergoing completion ALND and subsequent radiation field design. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with clinical T1-2N0 breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery, axillary staging, and whole breast RT in 2012 to 2013 were identified in the National Cancer Database. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to examine axillary management and RT, adjusting for demographic and clinicopathologic factors. RESULTS: Among 83,555 patients meeting criteria, 9.3% underwent upfront ALND, 75.8% underwent SLNB only, and 14.9% underwent SLNB with completion ALND. From 2012 to 2013, upfront SLNB increased from 90.1% to 91.4% (odds ratio, 1.14; P < .001). Among 9474 patients that underwent SLNB with 1 to 2 positive sentinel nodes, 31.2% received completion ALND. Among patients with 1 to 2 positive sentinel nodes, SLNB increased from 65.8% to 72.1% from 2012 to 2013 (P < .001). For patients with 1 to 2 positive lymph nodes that underwent SLNB only, 63.4% underwent breast RT, whereas 36.6% received breast and nodal RT. CONCLUSIONS: Nationwide practice patterns of axillary management vary. Despite an increasing rate of SLNB, many patients still receive upfront and completion ALND. Furthermore, there is significant variation in RT field design, and modern treatment guidelines are warranted for this patient population.
Authors: Takamaru Ashikaga; David N Krag; Stephanie R Land; Thomas B Julian; Stewart J Anderson; Ann M Brown; Joan M Skelly; Seth P Harlow; Donald L Weaver; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Joseph P Costantino; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2010-08-01 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Daniel J Boffa; Joshua E Rosen; Katherine Mallin; Ashley Loomis; Greer Gay; Bryan Palis; Kathleen Thoburn; Donna Gress; Daniel P McKellar; Lawrence N Shulman; Matthew A Facktor; David P Winchester Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: David N Krag; Stewart J Anderson; Thomas B Julian; Ann M Brown; Seth P Harlow; Joseph P Costantino; Takamaru Ashikaga; Donald L Weaver; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Lynne M Jalovec; Thomas G Frazier; R Dirk Noyes; André Robidoux; Hugh Mc Scarth; Norman Wolmark Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: D P Joyce; A J Lowery; L B McGrath-Soo; E Downey; L Kelly; G T O'Donoghue; M Barry; A D K Hill Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2015-01-17 Impact factor: 1.568
Authors: Himanshu Nagar; Lili Zhou; Bertrand Biritz; Cristina Sison; Jenghwa Chang; Michael Smith; Dattatreyudu Nori; K S Clifford Chao; Mary Katherine Hayes Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2013-10-27 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Gary H Lyman; Mark R Somerfield; Linda D Bosserman; Cheryl L Perkins; Donald L Weaver; Armando E Giuliano Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-12-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Armando E Giuliano; Karla Ballman; Linda McCall; Peter Beitsch; Pat W Whitworth; Peter Blumencranz; A Marilyn Leitch; Sukamal Saha; Monica Morrow; Kelly K Hunt Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Nina P Tamirisa; Yi Ren; Brittany M Campbell; Samantha M Thomas; Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; Jennifer K Plichta; Laura H Rosenberger; Jeremy Force; Terry Hyslop; E Shelley Hwang; Rachel A Greenup Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-09-18 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Amelie de Gregorio; Peter Widschwendter; Susanne Albrecht; Nikolaus de Gregorio; Thomas W P Friedl; Jens Huober; Wolfgang Janni; Florian K Ebner Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 2.915