Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Factors influencing the outcome of breast cancer patients with 10 or more metastasized axillary lymph nodes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this study was to investigate prognostic factors in breast cancer patients with metastasis of ten or more lymph nodes (pathologic N3a).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of the cases of 304 breast cancer patients with pathologic N3a disease who had undergone definitive surgery between 1986 and 2006, and investigated the correlation between clinicopathologic characteristics and treatment outcomes.

Results

With a median follow-up period of 55 months, the 5-year disease-free survival rate was 42.9% and the overall survival rate was 57.8%. Univariate analysis showed that the factors associated with poor disease-free survival were: age < 35 years (P = 0.001), history of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (P < 0.001), T4 stage (P < 0.001), 20 or more positive lymph nodes (P < 0.001), presence of lymphovascular invasion (P = 0.003), and negative progesterone receptor expression (P = 0.003). Multivariate analysis showed the factors with independent prognostic significance to be: history of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 3.163; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.025–4.941; P < 0.001), 20 or more positive nodes (HR 1.598; 95% CI, 1.063–2.402; P = 0.024), and presence of lymphovascular invasion (HR 1.636; 95% CI, 1.009–2.654; P = 0.046). Factors associated with poor overall survival in univariate analysis were: age < 35 years (P = 0.033), history of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (P < 0.001), T4 stage (P = 0.001), 20 or more positive lymph nodes (P < 0.001), and negative progesterone receptor expression (P = 0.013). Multivariate analysis showed these factors to be: history of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR 2.900; 95% CI, 2.011–4.182; P < 0.001), and 20 or more positive nodes (HR 1.956; 95% CI, 1.419–2.696; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Cases of breast tumors with extensive nodal metastasis were found to be heterogeneous in terms of prognosis. History of previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy and higher numbers of metastatic lymph nodes were found to be the two most important prognostic markers for pathologic N3a disease. New strategies such as biologic therapy and novel combinations should be considered for application in patients with poor prognosis, rather than conventional treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hortobagyi GN, de la Garza Salazar J, Pritchard K et al (2005) The global breast cancer burden: variations in epidemiology and survival. Clin Breast Cancer 6:391–401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Glass AG, Lacey JV Jr, Carreon JD et al (2007) Breast cancer incidence, 1980–2006: combined roles of menopausal hormone therapy, screening mammography, and estrogen receptor status. J Natl Cancer Inst 99:1152–1161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Newman LA (2009) Epidemiology of locally advanced breast cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol 19:195–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jones SE, Moon TE, Bonadonna G et al (1987) Comparison of different trials of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II breast cancer using a natural history data base. Am J Clin Oncol 10:387–395

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Basaran G, Devrim C, Caglar HB et al (2010) Clinical outcome of breast cancer patients with N3a (>/=10 positive lymph nodes) disease: has it changed over years? Med Oncol (in press). doi:10.1007/s12032-010-9516-1

  6. Singletary SE, Allred C, Ashley P et al (2003) Staging system for breast cancer: revisions for the 6th edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. Surg Clin North Am 83:803–819

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van’t Veer LJ et al (2002) A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:1999–2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Montero AJ, Rouzier R, Lluch A et al (2005) The natural history of breast carcinoma in patients with > or =10 metastatic axillary lymph nodes before and after the advent of adjuvant therapy: a multiinstitutional retrospective study. Cancer 104:229–235

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Duraker N, Caynak ZC, Bati B (2008) Is there any prognostically different subgroup among patients with stage IIIC (any TN3M0) breast carcinoma? Ann Surg Oncol 15:430–437

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Buzdar AU, Kau SW, Hortobagyi GN et al (1992) Clinical course of patients with breast cancer with ten or more positive nodes who were treated with doxorubicin-containing adjuvant therapy. Cancer 69:448–452

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tsuchiya A, Kanno M, Abe R (1997) The impact of lymph node metastases on the survival of breast cancer patients with ten or more positive lymph nodes. Surg Today 27:902–906

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Diab SG, Hilsenbeck SG, de Moor C et al (1998) Radiation therapy and survival in breast cancer patients with 10 or more positive axillary lymph nodes treated with mastectomy. J Clin Oncol 16:1655–1660

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Schmoor C, Sauerbrei W, Bastert G et al (2001) Long-term prognosis of breast cancer patients with 10 or more positive lymph nodes treated with CMF. Eur J Cancer 37:1123–1131

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Geara FB, Nasr E, Tucker SL et al (2007) Breast cancer patients with 10 or more involved axillary lymph nodes treated by multimodality therapy: influence of clinical presentation on outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 68:364–369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nemoto T, Vana J, Bedwani RN et al (1980) Management and survival of female breast cancer: results of a national survey by the American College of Surgeons. Cancer 45:2917–2924

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Wilson RE, Donegan WL, Mettlin C et al (1984) The 1982 national survey of carcinoma of the breast in the United States by the American College of Surgeons. Surg Gynecol Obstet 159:309–318

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kuerer HM, Newman LA, Buzdar AU et al (1998) Residual metastatic axillary lymph nodes following neoadjuvant chemotherapy predict disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Am J Surg 176:502–509

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Yildirim E, Semerci E, Berberoglu U (2000) The analysis of prognostic factors in stage III-B non-inflammatory breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 26:34–38

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ito M, Moriya T, Ishida T et al (2007) Significance of pathological evaluation for lymphatic vessel invasion in invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer 14:381–387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Goldhirsch A, Glick JH, Gelber RD et al (2005) Meeting highlights: international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2005. Ann Oncol 16:1569–1583

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Schoppmann SF, Bayer G, Aumayr K et al (2004) Prognostic value of lymphangiogenesis and lymphovascular invasion in invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg 240:306–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Smith IC, Heys SD, Hutcheon AW et al (2002) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: significantly enhanced response with docetaxel. J Clin Oncol 20:1456–1466

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. von Minckwitz G, Kummel S, Vogel P et al (2008) Neoadjuvant vinorelbine-capecitabine versus docetaxel-doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide in early nonresponsive breast cancer: phase III randomized GeparTrio trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:542–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 134 Shinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 120-752, Korea

    Jun Sang Lee, Seung Il Kim, So Young Choi, Hyung Seok Park, Jong Seok Lee, Seho Park & Byeong-Woo Park

  2. Department of Pathology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

    Jaseung Koo

  3. Brain Korea 21 Project for Medical Science, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

    Byeong-Woo Park

  4. Department of Surgery, Pochon CHA University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea

    Kyong Sik Lee

Authors
  1. Jun Sang Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seung Il Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. So Young Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hyung Seok Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jong Seok Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Seho Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jaseung Koo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Byeong-Woo Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Kyong Sik Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Byeong-Woo Park.

Additional information

Jun Sang Lee and S. I. Kim contributed equally to this study.

About this article

Cite this article

Lee, J.S., Kim, S.I., Choi, S.Y. et al. Factors influencing the outcome of breast cancer patients with 10 or more metastasized axillary lymph nodes. Int J Clin Oncol 16, 473–481 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-011-0207-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-011-0207-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation