Na-Na Wang1,2,3, Zheng-Jun Yang1,2,3, Xue Wang1,2,3, Li-Xuan Chen1,2,3, Hong-Meng Zhao1,2,3, Wen-Feng Cao4,2, Bin Zhang5,6,7. 1. The First Department of Breast Cancer, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Huan-Hu-Xi Road, Tian-Yuan-Bei, He Xi District, Tianjin, 300060, China. 2. Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300060, China. 3. Key Laboratory of Prevention and Therapy, Ministry of Education, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300060, China. 4. Department of Pathology, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin, 300060, China. 5. The First Department of Breast Cancer, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Huan-Hu-Xi Road, Tian-Yuan-Bei, He Xi District, Tianjin, 300060, China. eeflying@163.com. 6. Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300060, China. eeflying@163.com. 7. Key Laboratory of Prevention and Therapy, Ministry of Education, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300060, China. eeflying@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Molecular subtype of breast cancer is associated with sentinel lymph node status. We sought to establish a mathematical prediction model that included breast cancer molecular subtype for risk of positive non-sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer patients with sentinel lymph node metastasis and further validate the model in a separate validation cohort. METHODS: We reviewed the clinicopathologic data of breast cancer patients with sentinel lymph node metastasis who underwent axillary lymph node dissection between June 16, 2014 and November 16, 2017 at our hospital. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was performed and patients with pathologically proven sentinel lymph node metastasis underwent axillary lymph node dissection. Independent risks for non-sentinel lymph node metastasis were assessed in a training cohort by multivariate analysis and incorporated into a mathematical prediction model. The model was further validated in a separate validation cohort, and a nomogram was developed and evaluated for diagnostic performance in predicting the risk of non-sentinel lymph node metastasis. Moreover, we assessed the performance of five different models in predicting non-sentinel lymph node metastasis in training cohort. RESULTS: Totally, 495 cases were eligible for the study, including 291 patients in the training cohort and 204 in the validation cohort. Non-sentinel lymph node metastasis was observed in 33.3% (97/291) patients in the training cohort. The AUC of MSKCC, Tenon, MDA, Ljubljana, and Louisville models in training cohort were 0.7613, 0.7142, 0.7076, 0.7483, and 0.671, respectively. Multivariate regression analysis indicated that tumor size (OR = 1.439; 95% CI 1.025-2.021; P = 0.036), sentinel lymph node macro-metastasis versus micro-metastasis (OR = 5.063; 95% CI 1.111-23.074; P = 0.036), the number of positive sentinel lymph nodes (OR = 2.583, 95% CI 1.714-3.892; P < 0.001), and the number of negative sentinel lymph nodes (OR = 0.686, 95% CI 0.575-0.817; P < 0.001) were independent statistically significant predictors of non-sentinel lymph node metastasis. Furthermore, luminal B (OR = 3.311, 95% CI 1.593-6.884; P = 0.001) and HER2 overexpression (OR = 4.308, 95% CI 1.097-16.912; P = 0.036) were independent and statistically significant predictor of non-sentinel lymph node metastasis versus luminal A. A regression model based on the results of multivariate analysis was established to predict the risk of non-sentinel lymph node metastasis, which had an AUC of 0.8188. The model was validated in the validation cohort and showed excellent diagnostic performance. CONCLUSIONS: The mathematical prediction model that incorporates five variables including breast cancer molecular subtype demonstrates excellent diagnostic performance in assessing the risk of non-sentinel lymph node metastasis in sentinel lymph node-positive patients. The prediction model could be of help surgeons in evaluating the risk of non-sentinel lymph node involvement for breast cancer patients; however, the model requires further validation in prospective studies.
BACKGROUND: Molecular subtype of breast cancer is associated with sentinel lymph node status. We sought to establish a mathematical prediction model that included breast cancer molecular subtype for risk of positive non-sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancerpatients with sentinel lymph node metastasis and further validate the model in a separate validation cohort. METHODS: We reviewed the clinicopathologic data of breast cancerpatients with sentinel lymph node metastasis who underwent axillary lymph node dissection between June 16, 2014 and November 16, 2017 at our hospital. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was performed and patients with pathologically proven sentinel lymph node metastasis underwent axillary lymph node dissection. Independent risks for non-sentinel lymph node metastasis were assessed in a training cohort by multivariate analysis and incorporated into a mathematical prediction model. The model was further validated in a separate validation cohort, and a nomogram was developed and evaluated for diagnostic performance in predicting the risk of non-sentinel lymph node metastasis. Moreover, we assessed the performance of five different models in predicting non-sentinel lymph node metastasis in training cohort. RESULTS: Totally, 495 cases were eligible for the study, including 291 patients in the training cohort and 204 in the validation cohort. Non-sentinel lymph node metastasis was observed in 33.3% (97/291) patients in the training cohort. The AUC of MSKCC, Tenon, MDA, Ljubljana, and Louisville models in training cohort were 0.7613, 0.7142, 0.7076, 0.7483, and 0.671, respectively. Multivariate regression analysis indicated that tumor size (OR = 1.439; 95% CI 1.025-2.021; P = 0.036), sentinel lymph node macro-metastasis versus micro-metastasis (OR = 5.063; 95% CI 1.111-23.074; P = 0.036), the number of positive sentinel lymph nodes (OR = 2.583, 95% CI 1.714-3.892; P < 0.001), and the number of negative sentinel lymph nodes (OR = 0.686, 95% CI 0.575-0.817; P < 0.001) were independent statistically significant predictors of non-sentinel lymph node metastasis. Furthermore, luminal B (OR = 3.311, 95% CI 1.593-6.884; P = 0.001) and HER2 overexpression (OR = 4.308, 95% CI 1.097-16.912; P = 0.036) were independent and statistically significant predictor of non-sentinel lymph node metastasis versus luminal A. A regression model based on the results of multivariate analysis was established to predict the risk of non-sentinel lymph node metastasis, which had an AUC of 0.8188. The model was validated in the validation cohort and showed excellent diagnostic performance. CONCLUSIONS: The mathematical prediction model that incorporates five variables including breast cancer molecular subtype demonstrates excellent diagnostic performance in assessing the risk of non-sentinel lymph node metastasis in sentinel lymph node-positive patients. The prediction model could be of help surgeons in evaluating the risk of non-sentinel lymph node involvement for breast cancerpatients; however, the model requires further validation in prospective studies.