Advertisement

Extracapsular extension in the positive sentinel lymph node: a marker of poor prognosis in cT1-2N0 breast cancer patients?

  • Marissa L. G. VaneEmail author
  • Maria A. Willemsen
  • Lori M. van Roozendaal
  • Sander M. J. van Kuijk
  • Loes F. S. Kooreman
  • Sabine Siesling
  • Hans H. W. de Wilt
  • Marjolein L. Smidt
Clinical trial

Abstract

Objective

This study aims to evaluate whether extracapsular extension (ECE) in the sentinel lymph node (SLN) is associated with involvement of ≥ 4 lymph node metastases at completion axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and the effect on 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 10-year overall survival (OS).

Summary background data

ECE in a SLN is usually a contraindication for omitting completion ALND in cT1-2N0 breast cancer patients treated with breast-conserving therapy and 1–2 positive SLN(s).

Methods

All cT1-2N0 breast cancer patients with 1–3 positive SLN(s) who underwent ALND between 2005 and 2008 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association between ECE and ≥ 4 lymph node metastases. Five-year DFS and 10-year OS were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis. Cox regression analysis was performed to correct for other prognostic factors.

Results

A total of 3502 patients were included. Information on ECE was available for 2111 (60.3%) patients, consisting of 741 (35.1%) patients with and 1370 (64.9%) without ECE. The incidence of ≥ 4 lymph node metastases was 116 (15.7%) in the ECE group vs. 80 (5.8%) in the group without ECE (p < 0.001). Five-year DFS rate was 86.4% in the ECE group compared to 88.8% in the group without ECE (p = 0.085). 10-year OS rate was 78.6% compared to 83.0% (p = 0.018), respectively. Cox regression analysis showed that ECE was not an independent prognostic factor for both DFS and OS.

Conclusions

ECE was significantly associated with involvement of ≥ 4 lymph node metastases in the completion ALND group. ECE was not an independent prognostic factor for both DFS and OS.

Keywords

Breast cancer Sentinel lymph node Axillary lymph node dissection Extracapsular extension Disease-free survival Overall survival 

Abbreviations

ALND

Axillary lymph node dissection

BCT

Breast-conserving therapy

DFS

Disease-free survival

DM

Distant metastasis

ECE

Extracapsular extension

HR

Hazard ratio

IKNL

Comprehensive Cancer Organisation the Netherlands

LR

Local recurrence

NCR

Netherlands Cancer Registry

OS

Overall survival

PALGA

Pathological Anatomical National Automated Archive

RR

Regional recurrence

SLN

Sentinel lymph node

SLNB

Sentinel lymph node biopsy

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Netherlands Cancer Registry and Pathological Anatomical National Automated Archive for providing the clinical and histopathological data.

Funding

The research reported in this article was supported by CZ funds. This study was not funded. The funding organization had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None of the authors reported have a conflict of interest related to the outcomes of this study.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

10549_2018_5074_MOESM1_ESM.docx (2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 2091 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Nottegar A, Veronese N, Senthil M, Roumen RM, Stubbs B, Choi AH et al (2016) Extra-nodal extension of sentinel lymph node metastasis is a marker of poor prognosis in breast cancer patients: a systematic review and an exploratory meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 42(7):919–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Palamba HW, Rombouts MC, Ruers TJ, Klinkenbijl JH, Wobbes T (2001) Extranodal extension of axillary metastasis of invasive breast carcinoma as a possible predictor for the total number of positive lymph nodes. Eur J Surg Oncol 27(8):719–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fujii T, Yanagita Y, Fujisawa T, Hirakata T, Iijima M, Kuwano H (2010) Implication of extracapsular invasion of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer: prediction of nonsentinel lymph node metastasis. World J Surg 34(3):544–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van la Parra RF, Peer PG, Ernst MF, Bosscha K (2011) Meta-analysis of predictive factors for non-sentinel lymph node metastases in breast cancer patients with a positive SLN. Eur J Surg Oncol 37(4):290–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gorgulu S, Can MF, Yagci G, Sahin M, Tufan T (2007) Extracapsular extension is associated with increased ratio of metastatic to examined lymph nodes in axillary node-positive breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 7(10):796–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rivers AK, Griffith KA, Hunt KK, Degnim AC, Sabel MS, Diehl KM et al (2006) Clinicopathologic features associated with having four or more metastatic axillary nodes in breast cancer patients with a positive sentinel lymph node. Ann Surg Oncol 13(1):36–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stitzenberg KB, Meyer AA, Stern SL, Cance WG, Calvo BF, Klauber-DeMore N et al (2003) Extracapsular extension of the sentinel lymph node metastasis: a predictor of nonsentinel node tumor burden. Ann Surg 237(5):607–612; discussion 12 – 3Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goyal A, Douglas-Jones A, Newcombe RG, Mansel RE, Group AT (2004) Predictors of non-sentinel lymph node metastasis in breast cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 40(11):1731–1737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Altinyollar H, Berberoglu U, Gulben K, Irkin F (2007) The correlation of extranodal invasion with other prognostic parameters in lymph node positive breast cancer. J Surg Oncol 95(7):567–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Galimberti V, Cole BF, Zurrida S, Viale G, Luini A, Veronesi P et al (2013) Axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with sentinel-node micrometastases (IBCSG 23-01): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 14(4):297–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, Beitsch PD, Whitworth PW, Blumencranz PW et al (2011) Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 305(6):569–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gooch J, King TA, Eaton A, Dengel L, Stempel M, Corben AD et al (2014) The extent of extracapsular extension may influence the need for axillary lymph node dissection in patients with T1-T2 breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 21(9):2897–2903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Roozendaal LM, de Wilt JH, van Dalen T, van der Hage JA, Strobbe LJ, Boersma LJ et al (2015) The value of completion axillary treatment in sentinel node positive breast cancer patients undergoing a mastectomy: a Dutch randomized controlled multicentre trial (BOOG 2013-07). BMC Cancer 15:610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goyal A, Dodwell D (2015) POSNOC: a randomised trial looking at axillary treatment in women with one or two sentinel nodes with macrometastases. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 27(12):692–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tinterri C, Canavese G, Bruzzi P, Dozin B (2016) SINODAR ONE, an ongoing randomized clinical trial to assess the role of axillary surgery in breast cancer patients with one or two macrometastatic sentinel nodes. Breast 30:197–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Casparie M, Tiebosch AT, Burger G, Blauwgeers H, van de Pol A, van Krieken JH et al (2007) Pathology databanking and biobanking in The Netherlands, a central role for PALGA, the nationwide histopathology and cytopathology data network and archive. Cell Oncol 29(1):19–24Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    NABON (2012) Guideline mamma carcinoma. NABON, The Netherlands. http://richtlijnendatabase.nl/en/richtlijn/breast_cancer/locoregional_treatment.html
  18. 18.
    Moossdorff M, van Roozendaal LM, Strobbe LJ, Aebi S, Cameron DA, Dixon JM et al (2014) Maastricht Delphi consensus on event definitions for classification of recurrence in breast cancer research. J Natl Cancer Inst 106(12):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shigematsu H, Taguchi K, Koui H, Ohno S (2015) Clinical significance of extracapsular invasion at sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer patients with sentinel lymph node involvement. Ann Surg Oncol 22(7):2365–2371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Choi AH, Blount S, Perez MN, Chavez de Paz CE, Rodriguez SA, Surrusco M et al (2015) Size of extranodal extension on sentinel lymph node dissection in the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 Trial Era. JAMA Surg 150(12):1141–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Neri A, Marrelli D, Roviello F, De Stefano A, Guarnieri A, Pallucca E et al (2005) Prognostic value of extracapsular extension of axillary lymph node metastases in T1 to T3 breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 12(3):246–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gruber G, Bonetti M, Nasi ML, Price KN, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Rudenstam CM et al (2005) Prognostic value of extracapsular tumor spread for locoregional control in premenopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer treated with classical cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil: long-term observations from International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial VI. J Clin Oncol 23(28):7089–7097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schipper RJ, van Roozendaal LM, de Vries B, Pijnappel RM, Beets-Tan RG, Lobbes MB et al (2013) Axillary ultrasound for preoperative nodal staging in breast cancer patients: is it of added value? Breast 22(6):1108–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yajima R, Fujii T, Yanagita Y, Fujisawa T, Miyamoto T, Hirakata T et al (2015) Prognostic value of extracapsular invasion of axillary lymph nodes combined with peritumoral vascular invasion in patients with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 22(1):52–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marissa L. G. Vane
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Maria A. Willemsen
    • 1
  • Lori M. van Roozendaal
    • 3
  • Sander M. J. van Kuijk
    • 4
  • Loes F. S. Kooreman
    • 2
    • 5
  • Sabine Siesling
    • 6
    • 7
  • Hans H. W. de Wilt
    • 8
  • Marjolein L. Smidt
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Surgical OncologyMaastricht University Medical CentreMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental BiologyMaastricht University Medical CentreMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryZuyderland Medical CentreHeerlenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology AssessmentMaastricht University Medical CentreMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of PathologyMaastricht University Medical CentreMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Department of ResearchNetherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL)UtrechtThe Netherlands
  7. 7.Department of Health Technology and Services Research, MIRA Institute for Biomedical Science and Technical MedicineUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  8. 8.Department of Surgical OncologyRadboud University Medical CentreNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations