Shi-Ping Luo1, Jie Zhang1,2, Qi-Sen Wu3, Yu-Xiang Lin1,2, Chuan-Gui Song1,2. 1. Department of Breast Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China. 2. Department of General Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China. 3. Department of Orthopedics, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Survival in elderly patients undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) has not been specifically analyzed. This study aimed to explore the association between different types of axillary lymph node (ALN) evaluations and survival of elderly breast cancer patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of invasive ductal breast cancer patients 70 years and older in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2004-2016). Analyses were performed to compare the characteristics and survival outcomes of patients who received surgical lymph node dissection and those who did not. Breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival were compared by using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis and propensity score matching (PSM) methods to account for selection bias from covariate imbalance. RESULTS: Of the 75,950 patients analyzed, patients without ALN evaluation had a significantly worse prognosis, while there was no significant difference for BCSS between using a sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and an axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) after adjustment for known covariates [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.991, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.925-1.062, p = 0.800]. In the stratification analyses after PSM, the ALND did not show a significant BCSS advantage compared with SLNB in any subgroups except for the pN1 stage or above. Furthermore, after PSM of the pN1 stage patients, SLNB was associated with a significantly worse BCSS in hormone receptor negative (HR-) patients (HR = 1.536, 95%CI = 1.213-1.946, p < 0.001), but not in the hormone receptor positive (HR+) group (HR = 1.150, 95%CI = 0.986-1.340, p = 0.075). CONCLUSION: In our study, ALND does not yield superior survival compared with SLNB for elderly patients with pN1 stage HR+ breast cancer. Although our findings are limited by the bias associated with retrospective study design, we believe that in the absence of results from randomized clinical trials, our findings should be considered when recommending the omission of ALND for elderly breast cancer patients.
BACKGROUND: Survival in elderly patients undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) has not been specifically analyzed. This study aimed to explore the association between different types of axillary lymph node (ALN) evaluations and survival of elderly breast cancer patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of invasive ductal breast cancer patients 70 years and older in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2004-2016). Analyses were performed to compare the characteristics and survival outcomes of patients who received surgical lymph node dissection and those who did not. Breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival were compared by using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis and propensity score matching (PSM) methods to account for selection bias from covariate imbalance. RESULTS: Of the 75,950 patients analyzed, patients without ALN evaluation had a significantly worse prognosis, while there was no significant difference for BCSS between using a sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and an axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) after adjustment for known covariates [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.991, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.925-1.062, p = 0.800]. In the stratification analyses after PSM, the ALND did not show a significant BCSS advantage compared with SLNB in any subgroups except for the pN1 stage or above. Furthermore, after PSM of the pN1 stage patients, SLNB was associated with a significantly worse BCSS in hormone receptor negative (HR-) patients (HR = 1.536, 95%CI = 1.213-1.946, p < 0.001), but not in the hormone receptor positive (HR+) group (HR = 1.150, 95%CI = 0.986-1.340, p = 0.075). CONCLUSION: In our study, ALND does not yield superior survival compared with SLNB for elderly patients with pN1 stage HR+ breast cancer. Although our findings are limited by the bias associated with retrospective study design, we believe that in the absence of results from randomized clinical trials, our findings should be considered when recommending the omission of ALND for elderly breast cancer patients.
Authors: Julie Lemieux; Michael D Brundage; Wendy R Parulekar; Paul E Goss; James N Ingle; Kathleen I Pritchard; Paul Celano; Hyman Muss; Julie Gralow; Kathrin Strasser-Weippl; Kate Whelan; Dongsheng Tu; Timothy J Whelan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-01-12 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: Viviana Galimberti; Bernard F Cole; Stefano Zurrida; Giuseppe Viale; Alberto Luini; Paolo Veronesi; Paola Baratella; Camelia Chifu; Manuela Sargenti; Mattia Intra; Oreste Gentilini; Mauro G Mastropasqua; Giovanni Mazzarol; Samuele Massarut; Jean-Rémi Garbay; Janez Zgajnar; Hanne Galatius; Angelo Recalcati; David Littlejohn; Monika Bamert; Marco Colleoni; Karen N Price; Meredith M Regan; Aron Goldhirsch; Alan S Coates; Richard D Gelber; Umberto Veronesi Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-03-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Kevin S Hughes; Lauren A Schnaper; Jennifer R Bellon; Constance T Cirrincione; Donald A Berry; Beryl McCormick; Hyman B Muss; Barbara L Smith; Clifford A Hudis; Eric P Winer; William C Wood Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-05-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jessemae L Welsh; Tanya L Hoskin; Courtney N Day; Elizabeth B Habermann; Matthew P Goetz; Judy C Boughey Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: E C Inwald; O Ortmann; M Koller; F Zeman; F Hofstädter; M Evert; G Brockhoff; M Klinkhammer-Schalke Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Jun Wang; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Aysegul A Sahin; Min Yi; Abigail Caudle; Kelly K Hunt; Yun Wu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 3.240