Laura H Rosenberger1,2,3, Yi Ren4,5, Samantha M Thomas4,5, Rachel A Greenup6,4, Oluwadamilola M Fayanju6,4, E Shelley Hwang6,4, Jennifer K Plichta6,4. 1. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. Laura.Rosenberger@duke.edu. 2. Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. Laura.Rosenberger@duke.edu. 3. Department of Surgery, Duke University, DUMC 3351, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. Laura.Rosenberger@duke.edu. 4. Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 5. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 6. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: National guidelines define adequate axillary lymph node dissections as those yielding ≥ 10 lymph nodes (LNs). We aimed to identify the optimal LN yield among node-positive patients. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Data Base (2010-2015), we categorized node-positive patients as follows: (1) neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC, cN1-3 or ypN1mi-3) or (2) upfront surgery (pN1-3). A restricted cubic splines model was used to estimate LN retrieval thresholds associated with change in overall survival (OS). RESULTS: 129,685 patients were identified: 21.2% NAC, 78.8% upfront surgery. Low, moderate, and high retrieval thresholds were estimated to be 1-6, 7-21, and > 21 LNs (upfront surgery), and 1-7, 8-22, and > 22 LNs (NAC). In an adjusted model, high versus low LN yield was associated with greater receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy (upfront surgery OR 1.96, p < 0.001) and greater use of adjuvant radiation (upfront surgery OR 1.08, p = 0.02; NAC OR 1.23, p = 0.002). After adjustment, high versus low LN retrieval was associated with improved OS (upfront surgery HR 0.86, p < 0.001; NAC HR 0.77, p < 0.001). Worse OS was associated with retrieving fewer LNs, likely as a result of an under-staged axilla and missed opportunity for adjuvant therapy, while better OS was independently associated with retrieval of up to approximately 20 LNs, after which survival did not improve. CONCLUSION: In node-positive breast cancer, the number of nodes retrieved is significantly associated with an increased positive nodal count and greater use of adjuvant therapy. Removal of approximately 20 LNs may improve survival by both more accurate nodal staging and increased adjuvant therapy use.
PURPOSE: National guidelines define adequate axillary lymph node dissections as those yielding ≥ 10 lymph nodes (LNs). We aimed to identify the optimal LN yield among node-positive patients. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Data Base (2010-2015), we categorized node-positive patients as follows: (1) neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC, cN1-3 or ypN1mi-3) or (2) upfront surgery (pN1-3). A restricted cubic splines model was used to estimate LN retrieval thresholds associated with change in overall survival (OS). RESULTS: 129,685 patients were identified: 21.2% NAC, 78.8% upfront surgery. Low, moderate, and high retrieval thresholds were estimated to be 1-6, 7-21, and > 21 LNs (upfront surgery), and 1-7, 8-22, and > 22 LNs (NAC). In an adjusted model, high versus low LN yield was associated with greater receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy (upfront surgery OR 1.96, p < 0.001) and greater use of adjuvant radiation (upfront surgery OR 1.08, p = 0.02; NAC OR 1.23, p = 0.002). After adjustment, high versus low LN retrieval was associated with improved OS (upfront surgery HR 0.86, p < 0.001; NAC HR 0.77, p < 0.001). Worse OS was associated with retrieving fewer LNs, likely as a result of an under-staged axilla and missed opportunity for adjuvant therapy, while better OS was independently associated with retrieval of up to approximately 20 LNs, after which survival did not improve. CONCLUSION: In node-positive breast cancer, the number of nodes retrieved is significantly associated with an increased positive nodal count and greater use of adjuvant therapy. Removal of approximately 20 LNs may improve survival by both more accurate nodal staging and increased adjuvant therapy use.
Authors: Ivo A Olivotto; Chris D Bajdik; Peter M Ravdin; Caroline H Speers; Andrew J Coldman; Brian D Norris; Greg J Davis; Stephen K Chia; Karen A Gelmon Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A Luini; G Gatti; B Ballardini; S Zurrida; V Galimberti; P Veronesi; A R Vento; S Monti; G Viale; G Paganelli; U Veronesi Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 32.976
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: Philip M Poortmans; Sandra Collette; Carine Kirkove; Erik Van Limbergen; Volker Budach; Henk Struikmans; Laurence Collette; Alain Fourquet; Philippe Maingon; Mariacarla Valli; Karin De Winter; Simone Marnitz; Isabelle Barillot; Luciano Scandolaro; Ernest Vonk; Carla Rodenhuis; Hugo Marsiglia; Nicola Weidner; Geertjan van Tienhoven; Christoph Glanzmann; Abraham Kuten; Rodrigo Arriagada; Harry Bartelink; Walter Van den Bogaert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Abigail S Caudle; Wei T Yang; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Dalliah M Black; Michael Z Gilcrease; Isabelle Bedrosian; Brian P Hobbs; Sarah M DeSnyder; Rosa F Hwang; Beatriz E Adrada; Simona F Shaitelman; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Benjamin D Smith; Rosalind P Candelaria; Gildy V Babiera; Basak E Dogan; Lumarie Santiago; Kelly K Hunt; Henry M Kuerer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: P McGale; C Taylor; C Correa; D Cutter; F Duane; M Ewertz; R Gray; G Mannu; R Peto; T Whelan; Y Wang; Z Wang; S Darby Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Caitlin E Marks; Yi Ren; Laura H Rosenberger; Samantha M Thomas; Rachel A Greenup; Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; Susan McDuff; Gretchen Kimmick; E Shelley Hwang; Jennifer K Plichta Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; Yi Ren; Rachel A Greenup; Jennifer K Plichta; Laura H Rosenberger; Jeremy Force; Gita Suneja; Gayathri R Devi; Tari A King; Faina Nakhlis; Terry Hyslop; E Shelley Hwang Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-01-20 Impact factor: 4.872