Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Changing Behavior in Clinical Practice in Response to the ACOSOG Z0011 Trial: A Survey of the American Society of Breast Surgeons

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011 trial demonstrated no difference in overall survival or local–regional recurrence rates between patients planned for breast conservation therapy including whole breast irradiation (WBI) with one or two positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) randomly selected to undergo axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) versus no further surgery. The current study was undertaken to evaluate the impact of Z0011 on surgical practice nationally.

Methods

A survey was sent by e-mail to 2,759 members of the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS). Questions assessed the respondents’ practice, familiarity with Z0011, and preferences for treating patients with one or two positive SLNs.

Results

Of those surveyed, 849 (30.8 %) responded. The majority (97 %) indicated familiarity with the data. Of those respondents, 468 (56.9 %) would not routinely perform ALND in patients planned to receive WBI, while 279 (36.0 %) would consider omission of completion ALND in patients planned to receive accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI), and 218 (26.6 %) would consider omission of ALND in patients not planned to receive radiation. Academic and private practice surgeons were equally likely to incorporate Z0011 into practice.

Conclusions

ACOSOG Z0011 has changed surgical practice. ASBrS respondents have embraced Z0011 and have changed their practice, omitting ALND in patients with one or two positive SLNs who will undergo WBI. However, many also omit ALND in patients undergoing surgery without radiation or with APBI. As these clinical scenarios were not studied in Z0011, further evaluation is required prior to changing clinical practice.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fisher B, Redmond C, Fisher ER, et al. Ten-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing radical mastectomy and total mastectomy with or without radiation. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:674–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Fisher B, Redmond C, Poisson R, et al. Eight-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:822–28.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1227–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Van Bongen JA, Bartelink H, Fentiman I, et al. Randomized clinical trial to assess the value of breast-conserving therapy in stage I and II breast cancer, EORTC 10801 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1992;11:15–8.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Blichert-Toft M, Nielsen M, During M, et al. Long-term results of breast conserving surgery vs. mastectomy for early stage invasive breast cancer: 20-year follow-up of the Danish randomized DBCG-82TM protocol. Acta Oncol. 2008;47:672–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jacobson JA, Danforth DN, Cowan KH, et al. Ten-year results of a comparison of conservation with mastectomy in the treatment of stage I and II breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:907–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sarrazin D, Le MG, Arriagada R, et al. Ten-year results of a randomized trial comparing a conservative treatment to mastectomy in early breast cancer. Radiother Oncol. 1989;14:177–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Giuliano AE, Kirgan DM, Guenther JM, Morton DL. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymphadenectomy for breast cancer. Ann Surg. 1994;220:391–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Giuliano AE, Dale PS, Turner RR, et al. Improved axillary staging of breast cancer with sentinel lymphadenectomy. Ann Surg. 1995;222:394–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, et al. Technical outcomes of sentinel-lymph-node resection and conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer: results from the NSABP B-32 randomized phase III trial. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:881–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Viale G, et al. A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:546–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Veronesi U, Viale G, Paganelli G, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer ten-year results of a randomized controlled study. Ann Surg. 2010;251:595–600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ashikaga T, Krag DN, Land SR, et al. Morbidity results from the NSABP B-32 trial comparing sentinel lymph node dissection versus axillary dissection. J Surg Oncol. 2010;102:111–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lucci A, Mackie McCall L, Beitsch PD, et al. Surgical complications associated with sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) plus axillary lymph node dissection compared with SLND alone in the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group trial Z0011. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3657–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, et al. Axillary dissection vs. no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2011;305:569–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lyman GH, Guiliano AE, Somerfield MR, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7703–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast, version 1.2012. www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf (2012). Accessed 20 Feb 2012.

  18. The American Society of Breast Surgeons position statement on management of the axilla in patients with invasive breast cancer. http://www.breastsurgeons.org/statements/PDF_Statements/Axillary_Management.pdf (2011). Accessed 14 Nov 2011.

  19. Caudle AS, Hunt KK, Kuerer HM, et al. Multidisciplinary considerations in the implementation of the findings from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011 study: a practice-changing trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:2407–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jeruss JS, Winchester DJ, and Sener SF, et al. Axillary recurrence after sentinel node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2005;12:34–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hwang R, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Yi M, et al. Low locoregional failure rates in selected breast cancer patients with tumor-positive sentinel lymph nodes who do not undergo completion axillary dissection. Cancer. 2007;110:723–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Barkley C, Burstein H, Smith B, et al. Can axillary node dissection be omitted in a subset of patients with low local and regional failure rates? Breast J. 2012;18:23–7.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Galimberti V, Botteri E, Chifu C, et al. Can we avoid axillary dissection in the micrometastatic sentinel node in breast cancer? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;131:819–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yi M, Giordano SH, Meric-Bernstam F, et al. Trends in and outcomes from sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) alone vs. SLNB with axillary lymph node dissection for node-positive breast cancer patients: experience from the SEER database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:343–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bilimoria KY, Bentrem DJ, Hansen NM, et al. Comparison of sentinel lymph node biopsy alone and completion axillary lymph node dissection for node-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2946–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Haffty BG, Hunt KK, Harris JR, and Buchholz TA. Positive sentinel nodes without axillary dissection: implications for the radiation oncologist. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:4479–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Morrow M and Giuliano AE. To cut is to cure: can we really apply Z0011 in practice? Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:2413–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Galimberti V, Cole BF, Zurrida S, et al. Update of International Breast Cancer Study Group trial 23-01 to compare axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with clinically node negative breast cancer and micrometastases in the sentinel node. Cancer Res. 2011;71(suppl):102S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Sarah M. Gainer MD, Kelly K. Hunt MD, Abigail S. Caudle MD, Elizabeth A. Mittendorf MD & Anthony Lucci MD

  2. Dallas Surgical Associates, Dallas, TX, USA

    Peter Beitsch MD

Authors
  1. Sarah M. Gainer MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kelly K. Hunt MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Beitsch MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Abigail S. Caudle MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Elizabeth A. Mittendorf MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Anthony Lucci MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony Lucci MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gainer, S.M., Hunt, K.K., Beitsch, P. et al. Changing Behavior in Clinical Practice in Response to the ACOSOG Z0011 Trial: A Survey of the American Society of Breast Surgeons. Ann Surg Oncol 19, 3152–3158 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2523-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2523-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation