Breast Cancer

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 748–753 | Cite as

Validation study of the UICC TNM classification of malignant tumors, seventh edition, in breast cancer

  • Natsue Uehiro
  • Rie Horii
  • Takuji Iwase
  • Masahiko Tanabe
  • Takehiko Sakai
  • Hidetomo Morizono
  • Kiyomi Kimura
  • Kotaro Iijima
  • Yumi Miyagi
  • Seiichiro Nishimura
  • Masujiro Makita
  • Yoshinori Ito
  • Futoshi Akiyama
Original Article

Abstract

Background

The TNM classification of the Unio Internationalis Contra Cancrum was revised for the seventh edition. The major change concerning breast cancer is a change in the stages for patients with T0 or T1N1miM0. In the present study, the seventh edition of the TNM classification was validated in breast cancer.

Methods

The stages of 416 breast cancer patients, treated at our hospital in 1996, were classified according to the TNM classification, sixth and seventh editions, and their prognoses were compared.

Results

Case distribution using the sixth edition was stage 0, 56 cases (13.5 %); stage I, 158 cases (38.0 %); stage II, 130 [A, 102; B, 28] cases (31.2 [A, 24.5; B, 6.7] %); and stage III, 72 [A, 31; B, 8; C, 33] cases (17.3 [A, 7.5; B, 1.9; C, 7.9] %). According to the seventh edition, the stages for 20 patients, accounting for 19.6 % of IIA cases according to the sixth edition, decreased from IIA to IB. The 10-year overall survivals were stage 0, 91.1 %; stage I, 88.6 %; stage II, 80.8 %; and stage III, 63.9 % according to the sixth edition; and stage 0, 91.1 %; stage I, 88.8 %; stage II, 79.1 %; and stage III, 63.9 % according to the seventh edition. Although no significant differences were seen among the survival rates for stages 0 to II according to the sixth edition, there was a significant difference between stage I and II according to the seventh edition (p = 0.026).

Conclusion

The latest revision of the TNM classification is appropriate for breast cancer from the perspective of prognosis.

Keywords

Breast cancer TNM classification Micrometastasis Staging 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Greene FL. Breast tumours. In: Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C, editors. TNM classification of malignant tumours. 7th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009. p. 181–93.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Greene FL. Breast tumours. In: Sobin LH, Wittekind C, editors. TNM classification of malignant tumours. 6th ed. New York: Wiley; 2002. p. 131–141.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Patani N, Mokbel K. Clinical significance of sentinel lymph node isolated tumour cells in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;127:325–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Boer M, van Dijck JA, Bult P, Borm GF, Tjan-Heijnen VC. Breast cancer prognosis and occult lymph node metastases, isolated tumor cells, and micrometastases. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:410–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen SL, Hoehne FM, Giuliano AE. The prognostic significance of micrometastases in breast cancer: a SEER population-based analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:3378–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reed J, Rosman M, Verbanac KM, Mannie A, Cheng Z, Tafra L. Prognostic implications of isolated tumor cells and micrometastases in sentinel nodes of patients with invasive breast cancer: 10-year analysis of patients enrolled in the prospective East Carolina University/Anne Arundel Medical Center Sentinel Node Multicenter Study. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:333–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tan LK, Giri D, Hummer AJ, Panageas KS, Brogi E, Norton L, et al. Occult axillary node metastases in breast cancer are prognostically significant: results in 368 node-negative patients with 20-year follow-up. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1803–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pugliese MS, Beatty JD, Tickman RJ, Allison KH, Atwood MK, Szymonifka J, et al. Impact and outcomes of routine microstaging of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer: significance of the pN0(i+) and pN1mi categories. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:113–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weaver DL, Ashikaga T, Krag DN, Skelly JM, Anderson SJ, Harlow SP, et al. Effect of occult metastases on survival in node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:412–21.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Giuliano AE, Dale PS, Turner RR, Morton DL, Evance SW, Krasne DL. Improved axillary staging of breast cancer with sentinel lymphadenectomy. Ann Surg. 1995;222:394–401.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Salhab M, Patani N, Mokbel K. Sentinel lymph node micrometastasis in human breast cancer: an update. Surg Oncol. 2011;20:e195–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Park D, Káresen R, Naume B, Synnesvedt M, Beraki E, Sauer T. The prognostic impact of occult nodal metastasis in early breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;118:57–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grabau D, Ryden L, Femö M, Ingvar C. Analysis of sentinel node biopsy—a single-institution experience supporting the use of serial sectioning and immunohistochemistry for detection of micrometastases by comparing four different histopathological laboratory protocols. Histopathology. 2011;59:129–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rydén L, Chebil G, Sjöström L, Pawlowski R, Jönsson PE. Determination of sentinel lymph node (SLN) status in primary breast cancer by prospective use of immunohistochemistry increases the rate of micrometastases and isolated tumour cells: analysis of 174 patients after SLN biopsy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33:33–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cote RJ, Peterson HF, Chaiwun B, Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A, Castiglione-Gertsch M, et al. Role of immunohistochemical detection of lymph-node metastases in management of breast cancer. International Breast Cancer Study Group. Lancet. 1999;354:896–900.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tsujimoto M, Nakabayashi K, Yoshidome K, Kaneko T, Iwase T, Akiyama F, et al. One-step nucleic acid amplification for intraoperative detection of lymph node metastasis in breast cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:4807–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Breast Cancer Society 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natsue Uehiro
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rie Horii
    • 3
  • Takuji Iwase
    • 1
  • Masahiko Tanabe
    • 1
  • Takehiko Sakai
    • 1
  • Hidetomo Morizono
    • 1
  • Kiyomi Kimura
    • 1
  • Kotaro Iijima
    • 1
  • Yumi Miyagi
    • 1
  • Seiichiro Nishimura
    • 1
  • Masujiro Makita
    • 1
  • Yoshinori Ito
    • 1
  • Futoshi Akiyama
    • 2
  1. 1.Breast Oncology Center, Cancer Institute HospitalJapanese Foundation for Cancer ResearchTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Division of Pathology, Cancer InstituteJapanese Foundation for Cancer ResearchTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Division of Pathology, Cancer Institute HospitalJapanese Foundation for Cancer ResearchTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations