I Osorio-Silla1, A Gómez Valdazo2, J I Sánchez Méndez3, E York1, M Díaz-Almirón1, J Gómez Ramírez2, S Rivas Fidalgo2, J M Oliver4, C M Álvarez3, D Hardisson5, M Díaz Miguel2, F Lobo6, J Díaz Domínguez1. 1. Department of Surgery, Hospital Universitario La Pa , Madrid , Spain. 2. Department of Surgery, Hospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Díaz , Madrid , Spain. 3. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Hospital Universitario La Paz , Madrid , Spain. 4. Department of Radiology, Hospital Universitario La Paz , Madrid , Spain. 5. Department of Pathology, Hospital Universitario La Paz , Madrid , Spain. 6. Department of Oncology, Hospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Díaz , Madrid , Spain.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recent prospective studies support the feasibility of performing sentinel lymph node biopsy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in initially fine-needle aspiration cytology or ultrasound-guided biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer. The main aid is to identify preoperative features that help us predict a complete axillary response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in these patients and thus select the candidates for sentinel lymph node biopsy post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy to avoid unnecessary axillary lymphadenectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational study with a total of 150 patients, biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by breast surgery and axillary lymphadenectomy were included and retrospectively analysed. A predictive model was generated by a multivariate logistic regression analysis for pathological complete response-dependent variable. RESULTS: The response of the primary lesion to neoadjuvant chemotherapy according to post-treatment magnetic resonance imaging, Her2/neu overexpression and a low estrogen receptor expression are associated with a higher rate of nodal pathologically complete response. The multivariant model generated a receiver operating characteristic curve with an area under the curve of 0.79 and a confidence interval of 0.72-0.87 at a 95% level of significance. CONCLUSIONS: This model could be a helpful tool for the surgeon to help in predicting which cases have a higher likelihood of achieving a pathologically complete response and therefore selecting those who may benefit from a post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy sentinel lymph node biopsy and avoid unnecessary axillary lymphadenectomy.
INTRODUCTION: Recent prospective studies support the feasibility of performing sentinel lymph node biopsy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in initially fine-needle aspiration cytology or ultrasound-guided biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer. The main aid is to identify preoperative features that help us predict a complete axillary response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in these patients and thus select the candidates for sentinel lymph node biopsy post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy to avoid unnecessary axillary lymphadenectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational study with a total of 150 patients, biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by breast surgery and axillary lymphadenectomy were included and retrospectively analysed. A predictive model was generated by a multivariate logistic regression analysis for pathological complete response-dependent variable. RESULTS: The response of the primary lesion to neoadjuvant chemotherapy according to post-treatment magnetic resonance imaging, Her2/neu overexpression and a low estrogen receptor expression are associated with a higher rate of nodal pathologically complete response. The multivariant model generated a receiver operating characteristic curve with an area under the curve of 0.79 and a confidence interval of 0.72-0.87 at a 95% level of significance. CONCLUSIONS: This model could be a helpful tool for the surgeon to help in predicting which cases have a higher likelihood of achieving a pathologically complete response and therefore selecting those who may benefit from a post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy sentinel lymph node biopsy and avoid unnecessary axillary lymphadenectomy.
Authors: Jean-Francois Boileau; Brigitte Poirier; Mark Basik; Claire M B Holloway; Louis Gaboury; Lucas Sideris; Sarkis Meterissian; Angel Arnaout; Muriel Brackstone; David R McCready; Stephen E Karp; Isabelle Trop; Andre Lisbona; Frances C Wright; Rami J Younan; Louise Provencher; Erica Patocskai; Atilla Omeroglu; Andre Robidoux Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mila Donker; Geertjan van Tienhoven; Marieke E Straver; Philip Meijnen; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Robert E Mansel; Luigi Cataliotti; A Helen Westenberg; Jean H G Klinkenbijl; Lorenzo Orzalesi; Willem H Bouma; Huub C J van der Mijle; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Sanne C Veltkamp; Leen Slaets; Nicole J Duez; Peter W de Graaf; Thijs van Dalen; Andreas Marinelli; Herman Rijna; Marko Snoj; Nigel J Bundred; Jos W S Merkus; Yazid Belkacemi; Patrick Petignat; Dominic A X Schinagl; Corneel Coens; Carlo G M Messina; Jan Bogaerts; Emiel J T Rutgers Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Terri Patricia McVeigh; Dhafir Al-Azawi; David E Kearney; Carmel Malone; Karl J Sweeney; Kevin Barry; Ray McLaughlin; Maccon Keane; Michael J Kerin Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2013-10-21 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Armando E Giuliano; Kelly K Hunt; Karla V Ballman; Peter D Beitsch; Pat W Whitworth; Peter W Blumencranz; A Marilyn Leitch; Sukamal Saha; Linda M McCall; Monica Morrow Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-02-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Robert-Jan Schipper; Martine Moossdorff; Patty J Nelemans; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Bart de Vries; Luc J A Strobbe; Rudi M H Roumen; Franchette van den Berkmortel; Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Marc B I Lobbes; Marjolein L Smidt Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2014-01-03 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: David N Krag; Stewart J Anderson; Thomas B Julian; Ann M Brown; Seth P Harlow; Takamaru Ashikaga; Donald L Weaver; Barbara J Miller; Lynne M Jalovec; Thomas G Frazier; R Dirk Noyes; André Robidoux; Hugh M C Scarth; Denise M Mammolito; David R McCready; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Joseph P Costantino; Norman Wolmark Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Judy C Boughey; Linda M McCall; Karla V Ballman; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Gretchen M Ahrendt; Lee G Wilke; Bret Taback; A Marilyn Leitch; Teresa Flippo-Morton; Kelly K Hunt Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: M M Kim; P Allen; A M Gonzalez-Angulo; W A Woodward; F Meric-Bernstam; A U Buzdar; K K Hunt; H M Kuerer; J K Litton; G N Hortobagyi; T A Buchholz; E A Mittendorf Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-04-05 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: C Denkert; S Loibl; B M Müller; H Eidtmann; W D Schmitt; W Eiermann; B Gerber; H Tesch; J Hilfrich; J Huober; T Fehm; J Barinoff; C Jackisch; J Prinzler; T Rüdiger; E Erbstösser; J U Blohmer; J Budczies; K M Mehta; G von Minckwitz Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-08-22 Impact factor: 32.976