INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer is the most common female cancer in India, and 30-60% of patients present with locally advanced breast cancer. Level III clearance is routinely performed in India in locally advanced breast cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, even in clinical complete response. We analysed our data of patients with locally advanced breast cancer post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy who have undergone level III clearance to identify any subgroup in which level III dissection can be avoided. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study of female patients with locally advanced breast cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and underwent breast surgery including level III nodal clearance between June 2016 and May 2018. Data collected included age, menopausal status, TNM stage at presentation, grade, estrogen, progesterone, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status, response to treatment, post-chemotherapy stage and final histopathology. Uni- and multivariate analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Data from 200 patients was analysed. The level III positivity rate was 15.5%. The clinical complete response rate was 43%, of which 41% had pathological complete response. A significant association was present between level III node positivity and pathological T stage (p=0.03). No association was seen between level III positivity and any other studied variables. In the subset of patients with cT3N1 and cT2N2, level III positivity was seen in only 3/49 (6.1%) and 1/31 (3%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Level III positivity rate is high and so cannot be avoided in locally advanced breast cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. None of the preoperative factors predict for level III positivity. Level III positivity in cT3N1 and cT2N2 is low and these subgroups require further studies.
INTRODUCTION:Breast cancer is the most common female cancer in India, and 30-60% of patients present with locally advanced breast cancer. Level III clearance is routinely performed in India in locally advanced breast cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, even in clinical complete response. We analysed our data of patients with locally advanced breast cancer post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy who have undergone level III clearance to identify any subgroup in which level III dissection can be avoided. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study of female patients with locally advanced breast cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and underwent breast surgery including level III nodal clearance between June 2016 and May 2018. Data collected included age, menopausal status, TNM stage at presentation, grade, estrogen, progesterone, humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 status, response to treatment, post-chemotherapy stage and final histopathology. Uni- and multivariate analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Data from 200 patients was analysed. The level III positivity rate was 15.5%. The clinical complete response rate was 43%, of which 41% had pathological complete response. A significant association was present between level III node positivity and pathological T stage (p=0.03). No association was seen between level III positivity and any other studied variables. In the subset of patients with cT3N1 and cT2N2, level III positivity was seen in only 3/49 (6.1%) and 1/31 (3%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Level III positivity rate is high and so cannot be avoided in locally advanced breast cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. None of the preoperative factors predict for level III positivity. Level III positivity in cT3N1 and cT2N2 is low and these subgroups require further studies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Level III dissection; Locally advanced breast cancer; Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Authors: Aman U Buzdar; Vicente Valero; Nuhad K Ibrahim; Deborah Francis; Kristine R Broglio; Richard L Theriault; Lajos Pusztai; Marjorie C Green; Sonja E Singletary; Kelly K Hunt; Aysegul A Sahin; Francisco Esteva; William F Symmans; Michael S Ewer; Thomas A Buchholz; Gabriel N Hortobagyi Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-01-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: A Howell; J Cuzick; M Baum; A Buzdar; M Dowsett; J F Forbes; G Hoctin-Boes; J Houghton; G Y Locker; J S Tobias Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Jan 1-7 Impact factor: 79.321
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: Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: I P C Buzatto; A Ribeiro-Silva; J M Andrade; H H A Carrara; W A Silveira; D G Tiezzi Journal: Braz J Med Biol Res Date: 2017-01-26 Impact factor: 2.590