Shinsuke Sasada1, Norio Masumoto2, Akiko Emi2, Takayuki Kadoya2, Koji Arihiro3, Morihito Okada2. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, Research Institute for Radiation Biology and Medicine, Hiroshima University, 1-2-3 Kasumi, Minami-Ku, Hiroshima City, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan. shsasada@hiroshima-u.ac.jp. 2. Department of Surgical Oncology, Research Institute for Radiation Biology and Medicine, Hiroshima University, 1-2-3 Kasumi, Minami-Ku, Hiroshima City, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan. 3. Department of Anatomical Pathology, Hiroshima University Hospital, Hiroshima, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the clinical effect of the pathological axillary assessment method in breast cancer without clinical lymph node metastasis. METHODS: Data of patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer were retrospectively reviewed. The study period was divided into early (January 2000-July 2007) and late (August 2007-December 2014) periods based on the pathological assessment method used (single-sectional and detailed multi-sectional lymph node processing). In the late period, lymph nodes were evaluated at six levels including immunohistochemistry on each 1.5-2 mm interval section. The axillary diagnostic accuracy and role of chemotherapy were assessed. RESULTS: In 1698 patients, 27 isolated tumor cells (ITCs), 39 micrometastases, and 205 macrometastases were noted. The sensitivity for pathological N0 diagnosis was dependent on clinical T stage, Tis (97.8%), T1 (83.0%), T2 (74.2%), T3 (54.5%), and T4 (63.6%). ITCs and micrometastases were detected only in the late period, and 84.7% and 91.6% of cases in the early and late period, respectively, did not have macrometastases. The 5-year disease-free interval (DFI) rates were 95.2% in node-negative cases, 98.4% in ITCs/micrometastases, and 91.4% in macrometastases (P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, the predictor for DFI was estrogen receptor negativity (P = 0.013). Chemotherapy did not improve DFI in patients with node-positive breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The detailed multi-sectional pathological assessment of axillary lymph nodes detected ITCs and micrometastases. Implementation of chemotherapy should not be based on the minimal nodal metastasis and this type of serially nodal sectioned processing had little clinical significance.
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the clinical effect of the pathological axillary assessment method in breast cancer without clinical lymph node metastasis. METHODS: Data of patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer were retrospectively reviewed. The study period was divided into early (January 2000-July 2007) and late (August 2007-December 2014) periods based on the pathological assessment method used (single-sectional and detailed multi-sectional lymph node processing). In the late period, lymph nodes were evaluated at six levels including immunohistochemistry on each 1.5-2 mm interval section. The axillary diagnostic accuracy and role of chemotherapy were assessed. RESULTS: In 1698 patients, 27 isolated tumor cells (ITCs), 39 micrometastases, and 205 macrometastases were noted. The sensitivity for pathological N0 diagnosis was dependent on clinical T stage, Tis (97.8%), T1 (83.0%), T2 (74.2%), T3 (54.5%), and T4 (63.6%). ITCs and micrometastases were detected only in the late period, and 84.7% and 91.6% of cases in the early and late period, respectively, did not have macrometastases. The 5-year disease-free interval (DFI) rates were 95.2% in node-negative cases, 98.4% in ITCs/micrometastases, and 91.4% in macrometastases (P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, the predictor for DFI was estrogen receptor negativity (P = 0.013). Chemotherapy did not improve DFI in patients with node-positive breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The detailed multi-sectional pathological assessment of axillary lymph nodes detected ITCs and micrometastases. Implementation of chemotherapy should not be based on the minimal nodal metastasis and this type of serially nodal sectioned processing had little clinical significance.
Authors: Viviana Galimberti; Bernard F Cole; Giuseppe Viale; Paolo Veronesi; Elisa Vicini; Mattia Intra; Giovanni Mazzarol; Samuele Massarut; Janez Zgajnar; Mario Taffurelli; David Littlejohn; Michael Knauer; Carlo Tondini; Angelo Di Leo; Marco Colleoni; Meredith M Regan; Alan S Coates; Richard D Gelber; Aron Goldhirsch Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Mahul B Amin; Frederick L Greene; Stephen B Edge; Carolyn C Compton; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Robert K Brookland; Laura Meyer; Donna M Gress; David R Byrd; David P Winchester Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Javaid Iqbal; Ophira Ginsburg; Vasily Giannakeas; Paula A Rochon; John L Semple; Steven A Narod Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: David N Krag; Stewart J Anderson; Thomas B Julian; Ann M Brown; Seth P Harlow; Joseph P Costantino; Takamaru Ashikaga; Donald L Weaver; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Lynne M Jalovec; Thomas G Frazier; R Dirk Noyes; André Robidoux; Hugh Mc Scarth; Norman Wolmark Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-10 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