Matthew S Katz1, Linda McCall2, Karla Ballman3, Reshma Jagsi4, Bruce G Haffty5, Armando E Giuliano6. 1. Department of Radiation Medicine, Lowell General Hospital, 295 Varnum Avenue, Lowell, MA, 01854, USA. Matthew.Katz@lowellgeneral.org. 2. Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. 6. Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A substantial proportion of patients enrolled on ACOSOG Z0011 received protocol-deviant radiation treatment. It is currently unknown whether these deviations involved the use of more extensive fields in patients at higher nomogram-predicted risk. METHODS: We used the M.D. Anderson (MDA) and Memorial Sloan-Kettering (MSK) nomograms to estimate risk of additional positive axillary nodes using surgical pathology information. In the control arm, we compared axillary dissection (AD) findings to nomogram-predicted estimates for validation. We used logistic regression to evaluate whether nomogram-estimated higher risk of nodal involvement was associated with high tangent (HT) or supraclavicular (SCV) radiation fields for patients with known radiation field design. RESULTS: 552/856 (64.5%) had complete details for the MDA nomogram. Mean MDA risk estimate in both treatment arms was 23.8%. Estimated risk for patients on the AD arm with positive nodes was 25.9%. Higher risk estimate was associated with additional positive nodes in the AD arm (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06, p < 0.0001). We observed significant association with higher MDA nomogram-estimated risk and SCV radiation (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04-1.10, p < 0.0001) but not HT (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96-1.02, p = 0.52) The MSK nomogram had similar associations. CONCLUSION: MDA and MSK nomogram risk estimates were associated with lymph node risk in ACOSOG Z0011. Radiation oncologists' use of differing radiation fields were associated with treating higher risk patients. ClinicalTrials.gov id: NCT00003854.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: A substantial proportion of patients enrolled on ACOSOG Z0011 received protocol-deviant radiation treatment. It is currently unknown whether these deviations involved the use of more extensive fields in patients at higher nomogram-predicted risk. METHODS: We used the M.D. Anderson (MDA) and Memorial Sloan-Kettering (MSK) nomograms to estimate risk of additional positive axillary nodes using surgical pathology information. In the control arm, we compared axillary dissection (AD) findings to nomogram-predicted estimates for validation. We used logistic regression to evaluate whether nomogram-estimated higher risk of nodal involvement was associated with high tangent (HT) or supraclavicular (SCV) radiation fields for patients with known radiation field design. RESULTS: 552/856 (64.5%) had complete details for the MDA nomogram. Mean MDA risk estimate in both treatment arms was 23.8%. Estimated risk for patients on the AD arm with positive nodes was 25.9%. Higher risk estimate was associated with additional positive nodes in the AD arm (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06, p < 0.0001). We observed significant association with higher MDA nomogram-estimated risk and SCV radiation (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04-1.10, p < 0.0001) but not HT (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96-1.02, p = 0.52) The MSK nomogram had similar associations. CONCLUSION:MDA and MSK nomogram risk estimates were associated with lymph node risk in ACOSOG Z0011. Radiation oncologists' use of differing radiation fields were associated with treating higher risk patients. ClinicalTrials.gov id: NCT00003854.
Authors: Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Kelly K Hunt; Judy C Boughey; Roland Bassett; Amy C Degnim; Robyn Harrell; Min Yi; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Merrick I Ross; Gildy V Babiera; Henry M Kuerer; Rosa F Hwang Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Crystal J Hessman; Arpana M Naik; Nicole M Kearney; Amariek J Jensen; Brian S Diggs; Megan L Troxell; John T Vetto Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2011-09
Authors: Liling Zhu; Liang Jin; Shunrong Li; Kai Chen; Weijuan Jia; Quanyuan Shan; Stephen Walter; Erwei Song; Fengxi Su Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-01-05 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Antonio Piñero-Madrona; Guadalupe Ruiz-Merino; Laia Bernet; Begoña Miguel-Martínez; Francisco Vicente-García; María A Viguri-Díaz; Julia Giménez-Climent Journal: Breast Date: 2014-10-03 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Phillip L Ross; Claudia Gerigk; Mithat Gonen; Ofer Yossepowitch; Ilias Cagiannos; Pramod C Sogani; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan Journal: Semin Urol Oncol Date: 2002-05
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: Timothy J Whelan; Ivo A Olivotto; Wendy R Parulekar; Ida Ackerman; Boon H Chua; Abdenour Nabid; Katherine A Vallis; Julia R White; Pierre Rousseau; Andre Fortin; Lori J Pierce; Lee Manchul; Susan Chafe; Maureen C Nolan; Peter Craighead; Julie Bowen; David R McCready; Kathleen I Pritchard; Karen Gelmon; Yvonne Murray; Judy-Anne W Chapman; Bingshu E Chen; Mark N Levine Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joseph A Mitchell; Matthew R Cooperberg; Eric P Elkin; Deborah P Lubeck; Shilpa S Mehta; Christopher J Kane; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Armando E Giuliano; Karla V Ballman; Linda McCall; Peter D Beitsch; Meghan B Brennan; Pond R Kelemen; David W Ollila; Nora M Hansen; Pat W Whitworth; Peter W Blumencranz; A Marilyn Leitch; Sukamal Saha; Kelly K Hunt; Monica Morrow Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-09-12 Impact factor: 56.272