Advertisement

Evaluation of axillary lymph node metastasis burden by preoperative ultrasound in early-stage breast cancer with needle biopsy-proven metastasis

  • X. Wang
  • L. Chen
  • Y. Sun
  • B. ZhangEmail author
Research Article
  • 46 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. The Immune System and Cancer\Immunotherapy

Abstract

Purpose

The findings from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011 trial have questioned the use of axillary lymph node (ALN) dissection (ALND) in breast cancer patients with low ALN burden. In this study, our aim was to evaluate axillary nodal metastasis burden in patients with early-stage breast cancer who presented with metastatic lymph nodes diagnosed by fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB).

Methods

The data from 346 patients with cT1–T2 breast cancer who showed positive FNAB results and were seen at Tianjin Medical University Cancer Hospital from January 2014 to December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into high axillary nodal burden (≥ 3 positive lymph nodes) or low axillary nodal burden (one to two positive lymph nodes) groups. The clinical, radiological, and pathological features were compared between the two groups.

Results

From the 346 patients, 136 (39.3%) had low axillary nodal burden and 210 patients had high axillary nodal burden. Compared to patients with high metastatic burden, the patients with low metastatic burden were more likely to have two or fewer abnormal lymph nodes detected by AUS (95.6% vs. 65.3%, p < 0.05), and more likely to have HR/HER2 lesions (15.4% vs. 5.2%, p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed that patients with more than two abnormal lymph nodes had an odds ratio of 18.385 (95% CI 7.315–46.205, p < 0.05) to have axillary metastasis.

Conclusions

The presence of three or more abnormal lymph nodes on AUS was a significant indicator of high axillary nodal burden in early-stage breast cancer patients with positive FNAB findings. The combination of radiological and clinicopathological findings allows physicians to identify patients with high axillary nodal burden who will likely benefit from ALND in the post-ACOSOG Z0011 trial era.

Keywords

Breast cancer Axillary nodal burden Axillary lymph node dissection Sentinel lymph node biopsy ROC curve 

Abbreviations

BCT

Breast-conserving therapy

ALN

Axillary lymph node

SLN

Sentinel lymph node

ALND

Axillary lymph node dissection

SLNB

Sentinel lymph node biopsy

NSLN

Non-sentinel lymph node

ROC

Receiver-operator characteristic

AUC

Areas under the ROC curves

ACOSOG

American College of Surgeons Oncology Group

AJCC

American Joint Committee on Cancer

ER

Estrogen receptor

PR

Progesterone receptor

HER2

Human epidermal growth factor receptor-2

AUS

Axillary lymph node ultrasound

IHC

Immunohistochemistry

FISH

Fluorescence in situ hybridization

CEP17

Chromosome 17 centromere locus

HE

Hematoxylin–eosin

PPV

Positive predictive value

NPV

Negative predictive value

OR

Odds ratio

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge all the nurses in the breast cancer center for their services, along with the patients involved in this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. All authors have approved the final version of this manuscript.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research 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 author.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Breast Cancer (2018) https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/default.aspx. Accessed 10 Nov 2018
  2. 2.
    Giuliano AE, Ballman KV, McCall L, Beitsch PD, Brennan MB, Kelemen PR, et al. Effect of axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection on 10-year overall survival among women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: The ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017;318(10):918–26.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.11470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cools-Lartigue J, Sinclair A, Trabulsi N, Meguerditchian A, Mesurolle B, Fuhrer R, et al. Preoperative axillary ultrasound and fine-needle aspiration biopsy in the diagnosis of axillary metastases in patients with breast cancer: predictors of accuracy and future implications. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(3):819–27.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2609-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    del Riego J, Diaz-Ruiz MJ, Teixido M, Ribe J, Vilagran M, Canales L, et al. The impact of preoperative axillary ultrasonography in T1 breast tumours. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(4):1073–81.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3901-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Farshid G, Kollias J, Grantley Gill P. The clinical utility of assessment of the axilla in women with suspicious screen detected breast lesions in the post Z0011 era. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;151(2):347–55.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-015-3388-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Galimberti V, Cole BF, Zurrida S, Viale G, Luini A, Veronesi P, et al. Axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with sentinel-node micrometastases (IBCSG 23–01): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(4):297–305.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70035-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giuliano AE, McCall L, Beitsch P, Whitworth PW, Blumencranz P, Leitch AM, et al. Locoregional recurrence after sentinel lymph node dissection with or without axillary dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node metastases: the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2010;252(3):426–32. (discussion 32-3. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181f08f32)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Donker M, van Tienhoven G, Straver ME, Meijnen P, van de Velde CJ, Mansel RE, et al. Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer (EORTC 10981–22023 AMAROS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(12):1303–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70460-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bilimoria KY, Bentrem DJ, Hansen NM, Bethke KP, Rademaker AW, Ko CY, et al. Comparison of sentinel lymph node biopsy alone and completion axillary lymph node dissection for node-positive breast cancer. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2009;27(18):2946–53.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.19.5750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fant JS, Grant MD, Knox SM, Livingston SA, Ridl K, Jones RC, et al. Preliminary outcome analysis in patients with breast cancer and a positive sentinel lymph node who declined axillary dissection. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10(2):126–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pilewskie M, Morrow M. Reply to "Implications of abnormal preoperative axillary imaging in the post Z011 era". Gland surgery. 2016;5(4):453–4.  https://doi.org/10.21037/gs.2016.07.03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lim GH, Upadhyaya VS, Acosta HA, Lim JMA, Allen JC Jr, Leong LCH. Preoperative predictors of high and low axillary nodal burden in Z0011 eligible breast cancer patients with a positive lymph node needle biopsy result. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44(7):945–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2018.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hieken TJ, Trull BC, Boughey JC, Jones KN, Reynolds CA, Shah SS, et al. Preoperative axillary imaging with percutaneous lymph node biopsy is valuable in the contemporary management of patients with breast cancer. Surgery. 2013;154(4):831–8. (discussion 8-40. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2013.07.017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pilewskie M, Mautner SK, Stempel M, Eaton A, Morrow M. Does a Positive Axillary Lymph Node Needle Biopsy Result Predict the Need for an Axillary Lymph Node Dissection in Clinically Node-Negative Breast Cancer Patients in the ACOSOG Z0011 Era? Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(4):1123–8.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4944-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhu Y, Zhou W, Zhou JQ, Fei XC, Ye TJ, Huang O, et al. Axillary staging of early-stage invasive breast cancer by ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology: which ultrasound criteria for classifying abnormal lymph nodes should be adopted in the post-ACOSOG Z0011 trial Era? J Ultrasound Med. 2016;35(5):885–93.  https://doi.org/10.7863/ultra.15.06019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lowery AJ, Kell MR, Glynn RW, Kerin MJ, Sweeney KJ. Locoregional recurrence after breast cancer surgery: a systematic review by receptor phenotype. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133(3):831–41.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1891-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nguyen PL, Taghian AG, Katz MS, Niemierko A, Abi Raad RF, Boon WL, et al. Breast cancer subtype approximated by estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER-2 is associated with local and distant recurrence after breast-conserving therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(14):2373–8.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.14.4287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dominici LS, Mittendorf EA, Wang X, Liu J, Kuerer HM, Hunt KK, et al. Implications of constructed biologic subtype and its relationship to locoregional recurrence following mastectomy. Breast Cancesr Res BCR. 2012;14(3):R82.  https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr3197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Voduc KD, Cheang MC, Tyldesley S, Gelmon K, Nielsen TO, Kennecke H. Breast cancer subtypes and the risk of local and regional relapse. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(10):1684–91.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.24.9284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Holm-rasmussen EV, Jensen MB, Balslev E, et al. Reduced risk of axillary lymphatic spread in triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treatment 2015, 149(1): 229–36. dio: 10.1007/s10549–014–3225-yGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Freedman GM, Anderson PR, Li T, et al. Locoregional recurrence of triple-negative breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery and radiation. Cancer. 2009;115(5):946–51.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Crabb SJ, Cheang MC, Leung S, et al. Basal breast cancer molecular subtype predicts for lower incidence of axillary lymph node metastases in primary breast cancer. Clinical Breast Cancer. 2008;8(3):249–56.  https://doi.org/10.3816/cbc.2008.n.028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dent R, Hanna WM, Trudeau M, et al. Pattern of metastatic spread in triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;115(2):423–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-008-0086-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Caudle AS, Kuerer HM, Le-Petross HT, Yang W, Yi M, Bedrosian I, et al. Predicting the extent of nodal disease in early-stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(11):3440–7.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3813-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morrow M, Van Zee KJ, Patil S, Petruolo O, Mamtani A, Barrio AV, et al. Axillary Dissection and Nodal Irradiation Can Be Avoided for Most Node-positive Z0011-eligible Breast Cancers: A Prospective Validation Study of 793 Patients. Ann Surg. 2017;266(3):457–62.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Federación de Sociedades Españolas de Oncología (FESEO) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin, Key Laboratory of Breast Cancer Prevention and Therapy, The First Department of Breast Cancer, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer Tianjin’s Clinical Research Center for CancerTianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and HospitalTianjinChina

Personalised recommendations