Linda Ye1, Dennis Rünger2, Stephanie A Angarita1, Joseph Hadaya1, Jennifer L Baker1, Minna K Lee3, Carlie K Thompson1, Deanna J Attai1, Maggie L DiNome4. 1. Department of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. Statistics Core, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. Maggie.dinome@duke.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Studies support omission of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) for patients with sentinel node-positive disease, with ALND recommended for patients who present with clinically positive nodes. Here, we evaluate patient and tumor characteristics and pathologic nodal stage of patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER +) breast cancer who undergo ALND to determine if differences exist based on nodal presentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective chart review from 2010 to 2019 defined three groups of patients with ER + breast cancer who underwent ALND for positive nodes: SLN + (positive node identified at SLN biopsy), cNUS (abnormal preoperative US and biopsy), and cNpalp (palpable adenopathy). Patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy or presented with axillary recurrence were excluded. RESULTS: Of 191 patients, 94 were SLN + , 40 were cNUS, and 57 were cNpalp. Patients with SLN + compared with cNpalp were younger (56 vs 64 years, p < 0.01), more often pre-menopausal (41% vs 14%, p < 0.01), and White (65% vs 39%, p = 0.01) with more tumors that were low-grade (36% vs 8%, p < 0.01). Rates of PR + (p = 0.16), levels of Ki67 expression (p = 0.07) and LVI (p = 0.06) did not differ significantly among groups. Of patients with SLN + disease, 64% had pN1 disease compared to 38% of cNUS (p = 0.1) and 40% of cNpalp (p = 0.01). On univariable analysis, tumor size (p = 0.01) and histology (p = 0.04) were significantly associated with pN1 disease, with size remaining an independent predictor on multivariable analysis (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Historically, higher risk features have been attributed to patients with clinically positive nodes precluding omission of ALND, but when restricting evaluation to patients with ER + breast cancer, only tumor size is associated with higher nodal stage.
INTRODUCTION: Studies support omission of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) for patients with sentinel node-positive disease, with ALND recommended for patients who present with clinically positive nodes. Here, we evaluate patient and tumor characteristics and pathologic nodal stage of patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER +) breast cancer who undergo ALND to determine if differences exist based on nodal presentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective chart review from 2010 to 2019 defined three groups of patients with ER + breast cancer who underwent ALND for positive nodes: SLN + (positive node identified at SLN biopsy), cNUS (abnormal preoperative US and biopsy), and cNpalp (palpable adenopathy). Patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy or presented with axillary recurrence were excluded. RESULTS: Of 191 patients, 94 were SLN + , 40 were cNUS, and 57 were cNpalp. Patients with SLN + compared with cNpalp were younger (56 vs 64 years, p < 0.01), more often pre-menopausal (41% vs 14%, p < 0.01), and White (65% vs 39%, p = 0.01) with more tumors that were low-grade (36% vs 8%, p < 0.01). Rates of PR + (p = 0.16), levels of Ki67 expression (p = 0.07) and LVI (p = 0.06) did not differ significantly among groups. Of patients with SLN + disease, 64% had pN1 disease compared to 38% of cNUS (p = 0.1) and 40% of cNpalp (p = 0.01). On univariable analysis, tumor size (p = 0.01) and histology (p = 0.04) were significantly associated with pN1 disease, with size remaining an independent predictor on multivariable analysis (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Historically, higher risk features have been attributed to patients with clinically positive nodes precluding omission of ALND, but when restricting evaluation to patients with ER + breast cancer, only tumor size is associated with higher nodal stage.
Authors: Bernard Fisher; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Stewart Anderson; John Bryant; Edwin R Fisher; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-08-22 Impact factor: 91.245
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: 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: Regina Matar; Angelena Crown; Varadan Sevilimedu; Shari B Goldfarb; Mary L Gemignani Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-10-28 Impact factor: 4.339
Authors: Calogero Cipolla; Maria Rosaria Valerio; Nello Grassi; Sergio Calamia; Stefania Latteri; Mario Latteri; Giuseppa Graceffa; Salvatore Vieni Journal: In Vivo Date: 2020 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Joseph A Sparano; Robert J Gray; Della F Makower; Kathleen I Pritchard; Kathy S Albain; Daniel F Hayes; Charles E Geyer; Elizabeth C Dees; Matthew P Goetz; John A Olson; Tracy Lively; Sunil S Badve; Thomas J Saphner; Lynne I Wagner; Timothy J Whelan; Matthew J Ellis; Soonmyung Paik; William C Wood; Peter M Ravdin; Maccon M Keane; Henry L Gomez Moreno; Pavan S Reddy; Timothy F Goggins; Ingrid A Mayer; Adam M Brufsky; Deborah L Toppmeyer; Virginia G Kaklamani; Jeffrey L Berenberg; Jeffrey Abrams; George W Sledge Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-06-03 Impact factor: 91.245