| Literature DB >> 31878958 |
Samia Al-Hattali1, Sarah J Vinnicombe2,3, Nazleen Muhammad Gowdh4, Andrew Evans4, Sharon Armstrong5, Douglas Adamson5, Colin A Purdie6, E Jane Macaskill7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In patients who have had axillary nodal metastasis diagnosed prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer, there is little consensus on how to manage the axilla subsequently. The aim of this study was to explore whether a combination of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessed response and primary tumour pathology factors could identify a subset of patients that might be spared axillary node clearance.Entities:
Keywords: Axilla lymph node; Breast cancer; Magnetic resonance imaging; Neoadjuvant chemotherapy; Sentinel node biopsy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31878958 PMCID: PMC6933687 DOI: 10.1186/s40644-019-0279-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Imaging ISSN: 1470-7330 Impact factor: 3.909
Baseline tumour pathology and treatment characteristics
| Total patients | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cT stage | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | |
| 1 (1.1%) | 53 (60.9%) | 18 (20.7%) | 15 (17.2%) | ||
| cN stage | N1 | N2 | N3 | ||
| 76 (86%) | 7 (9%) | 4 (5%) | |||
| Type of chemotherapy | Anthracycline only | Taxane only | Combination | ||
| 14 (16.1%) | 5 (5.7%) | 68 (78.2%) | |||
| Trastuzumab | Trastuzumab | ||||
| 34 (39.1%) | |||||
| Type of surgery | Breast conservation | Mastectomy | |||
| 29 (33.3%) | 58 (66.7%) | ||||
| Tumour grade | G1 | G2 | G3 | ||
| 1 (1.1%) | 23 (26.4%) | 63 (72.4%) | |||
| Tumour type | Invasive ductal | Invasive lobular | Other | ||
| 79 (90.8%) | 4 (4.6%) | 4 (4.6%) | |||
| Immunophenotype | ER +/HER2 + | ER +/HER2 | ER −/HER2 | ER −/HER2 – | |
| 26 (29.9%) | 30 (34.5%) | 8 (9.2%) | 23 (26.4%) | ||
| Pathological response of tumour | Complete response | Near complete | Partial response | Minimal response | No response |
| 15 (17.2%) | 21 (24.1%) | 41 (47.1%) | 2 (2.3%) | 8 (9.2%) | |
| Pathological assessment of nodes | No residual metastasis | ITC/ Mic only | 1–2 nodes with macrometasis | More than 2 nodes with metastasis | |
| 23 (26.4%) | 10 (11.5%) | 28 (32.3%) | 26 (29.9%) | ||
Patient and tumour factors and association with level of axillary nodal burden on pathology
| No residual macrometastatic nodes n (%) | 1–2 residual metastatic nodes n (%) | More than 2 residual metastatic nodes n (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 33 (37.9%) | 28 (32.2%) | 26 (29.9%) | |
| Patient median age (years) | 50.0 | 48.5 | 53.0 | 0.319 |
| Trastuzumab given | ||||
| yes | 18 (53%) | 8(23.5%) | 8 (23.5%) | 0.068 |
| no | 15 (28%) | 20 (38%) | 18 (34%) | |
| Type of chemo | ||||
| FEC | 2 (14%) | 7 (50%) | 5 (36%) | |
| Taxane | 2 (40%) | 2 (40%) | 1 (20%) | 0.325 |
| both | 29 (43%) | 19 (28%) | 20 (29%) | |
| Tumour type | ||||
| Ductal | 30 (38%) | 27 (34%) | 22 (28%) | 0.015 |
| Lobular | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (100%) | |
| Other | 3 (75%) | 1 (25%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Tumour grade | ||||
| 1 | 0 (0%) | 1 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0.080 |
| 2 | 6 (26%) | 12 (52%) | 5 (22%) | |
| 3 | 27 (43%) | 15 (24%) | 21 (33%) | |
| T staging | ||||
| T1 | 1 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0.188 |
| T2 | 21 (40%) | 21 (40%) | 11 (20%) | |
| T3 | 7 (39%) | 3 (17%) | 8 (44%) | |
| T4 | 4 (27%) | 4 (27%) | 7 (46%) | |
| Immunophenotype | ||||
| ER + ve/HER2 + ve | 13 (50%) | 8 (31%) | 5 (19%) | |
| ER + ve/HER2 -ve | 6 (20%) | 15 (50%) | 9 (30%) | 0.044 |
| ER -ve/HER2 + ve | 5 (63%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (37%) | |
| ER -ve/HER2 –ve | 9 (39%) | 5 (22%) | 9 (39%) | |
Presurgical imaging modalities and association with level of axillary nodal burden on pathology
| No residual macrometastatic nodes n (%) | 1–2 residual metastatic nodes n (%) | More than 2 residual metastatic nodes n (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 33 (38%) | 28 (32%) | 26 (30%) | |
| MRI breast tumour phenotype: | ||||
| Mass | 21 (41%) | 20 (39%) | 10 (20%) | |
| Non-mass enhancement | 4 (33%) | 4 (33%) | 4 (33%) | 0.091 |
| Both | 8 (33%) | 4 (17%) | 12 (50%) | |
| MRI breast interim chemo: | ||||
| Complete response | 10 (90%) | 0 | 1 (10%) | |
| Partial response | 18 (40%) | 18 (40%) | 9 (20%) | < 0.0001 |
| Stable disease | 3 (11%) | 9 (33%) | 15 (56%) | |
| Progressive disease | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |
| MRI breast post chemo: | ||||
| Complete response | 25 (64%) | 9 (23%) | 5 (13%) | < 0.0001 |
| Partial response | 6 (15%) | 16 (40%) | 18 (45%) | |
| Stable disease | 2 (40%) | 2 (40%) | 1 (20%) | |
| Progressive disease | 0 (0%) | 1 (100%) | 0 (0%) | |
| MRI axilla post chemo: | ||||
| Normal | 21 (46%) | 13 (28%) | 12 (26%) | 0.087 |
| Borderline | 7 (39%) | 7 (39%) | 4 (22%) | |
| Abnormal (partial response) | 5 (31%) | 3 (19%) | 8 (50%) | |
| Abnormal | 0 (0%) | 5 (71%) | 2 (29%) | |
Fig. 1Demonstrates the association of tumour response as predicted on interim-treatment breast MRI and the pathological findings in axillary nodes r = 0.50; p < 0.0001. There were no patients with tumours showing progressive disease at interim MRI. Key: No residual macrometastasis in axillary nodes =0; residual macrometastasis in 1 or 2 nodes =1–2; residual macrometastasis in more than 2 nodes = > 2
Fig. 2demonstrates the reported axillary response from MRI assessment post-treatment and the number of positive nodes from the axillary node clearance. There was no statistical correlation