Amanda L Nash1, Samantha M Thomas2,3, Jennifer K Plichta1,2, Oluwadamilola M Fayanju1,2, E Shelley Hwang1,2, Rachel A Greenup1,2, Laura H Rosenberger4,5. 1. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 2. Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. Laura.Rosenberger@duke.edu. 5. Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. Laura.Rosenberger@duke.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contralateral axillary nodal metastases (CAM) is classified as stage IV disease, although many centers treat CAM with curative intent. We hypothesized that patients with CAM, treated with multimodality therapy, would have improved overall survival (OS) versus patients with distant metastatic disease (M1) and similar OS to those with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC). METHODS: Using the NCDB (2004-2016), we categorized adult patients with node-positive breast cancer into three study groups: LABC, CAM, and M1. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to visualize the unadjusted OS. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association of study group with OS. RESULTS: A total of 94,487 patients were identified: 122 with CAM, 12,325 with LABC, and 82,040 with M1 (median follow-up 63.6 months). LABC and CAM patients had similar histology and rates of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy receipt. However, the CAM group had significantly larger tumors, more estrogen-receptor expression, higher T-stage, and more mastectomies than the LABC group. Compared with M1 patients, CAM patients were more likely to have grade 3 and cT4 tumors. Patients with CAM and LABC had similar 5-year unadjusted OS and significantly improved OS vs M1 patients. After adjustment, LABC and CAM patients continued to have similar OS and better OS vs M1 patients. CONCLUSIONS: CAM patients who receive multi-modal therapy with curative intent may have OS more comparable to LABC patients than M1 patients. Out data support a reevaluation of whether CAM should remain classified as M1, as N3 may better reflect disease prognosis and treatment goals.
BACKGROUND: Contralateral axillary nodal metastases (CAM) is classified as stage IV disease, although many centers treat CAM with curative intent. We hypothesized that patients with CAM, treated with multimodality therapy, would have improved overall survival (OS) versus patients with distant metastatic disease (M1) and similar OS to those with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC). METHODS: Using the NCDB (2004-2016), we categorized adult patients with node-positive breast cancer into three study groups: LABC, CAM, and M1. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to visualize the unadjusted OS. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association of study group with OS. RESULTS: A total of 94,487 patients were identified: 122 with CAM, 12,325 with LABC, and 82,040 with M1 (median follow-up 63.6 months). LABC and CAM patients had similar histology and rates of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy receipt. However, the CAM group had significantly larger tumors, more estrogen-receptor expression, higher T-stage, and more mastectomies than the LABC group. Compared with M1 patients, CAM patients were more likely to have grade 3 and cT4 tumors. Patients with CAM and LABC had similar 5-year unadjusted OS and significantly improved OS vs M1 patients. After adjustment, LABC and CAM patients continued to have similar OS and better OS vs M1 patients. CONCLUSIONS: CAM patients who receive multi-modal therapy with curative intent may have OS more comparable to LABC patients than M1 patients. Out data support a reevaluation of whether CAM should remain classified as M1, as N3 may better reflect disease prognosis and treatment goals.
Authors: Erika A Newman; Vincent M Cimmino; Michael S Sabel; Kathleen M Diehl; Kirk A Frey; Alfred E Chang; Lisa A Newman Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2006-01-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: R A Brito; V Valero; A U Buzdar; D J Booser; F Ames; E Strom; M Ross; R L Theriault; D Frye; S W Kau; L Asmar; M McNeese; S E Singletary; G N Hortobagyi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Francesca Magnoni; M Colleoni; D Mattar; G Corso; V Bagnardi; S Frassoni; G Santomauro; B A Jereczek-Fossa; P Veronesi; V Galimberti; V Sacchini; M Intra Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-05-21 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Tara L Huston; Peter I Pressman; Anne Moore; Linda Vahdat; Syed A Hoda; Meredith Kato; Douglas Weinstein; Eleni Tousimis Journal: Breast J Date: 2007 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Ivo A Olivotto; Boon Chua; Sharon J Allan; Caroline H Speers; Stephen Chia; Joseph Ragaz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nina P Tamirisa; Yi Ren; Brittany M Campbell; Samantha M Thomas; Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; Jennifer K Plichta; Laura H Rosenberger; Jeremy Force; Terry Hyslop; E Shelley Hwang; Rachel A Greenup Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-09-18 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Michael Untch; Peter A Fasching; Renate Haidinger; Nadia Harbeck; Christian Jackisch; Diana Lüftner; Volkmar Müller; Eva Schumacher-Wulf; Rachel Würstlein; Christoph Thomssen Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2022-09-30 Impact factor: 2.754