Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The feasibility of a randomised controlled trial for the axillary management of a select group of invasive breast cancer patients: SLNB vs. no-SLNB

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The results of ZOO11 have shaken our thinking and approach for the axillary management of small invasive breast cancers where the incidence and burden of axillary metastasis would be much less than that of ZOO11 population. The traditional approach of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for “all invasive cancers” is challenged because of the diminishing role of axillary lymph nodes (ALNs) status in guiding the adjuvant systemic therapy. Certainly this raises the question of whether SLNB can be avoided in a select group of patients without compromising clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to identify such a group of patients in whom SLNB is no longer required.

Method

Patients with breast cancers ≤2 cm in size and clinically negative axilla who underwent breast conserving surgery (BCS) and SLNB were identified. Patients were divided into different groups; incidence of ALNs metastasis, further non-SLNs metastasis and a total number of tumour positive ALNs of ≥4 were determined.

Results

A total of 194 patients met the criteria; incidence of tumour positive SLNs, further non-SLNs metastasis and a total number of tumour positive ALNs of ≥4 varied between different groups and was 9.3–15.5 %, 0–35 % and 0–2.6 %, respectively. Patients with T1b, grade 1–2 tumours had less than 5 % risk of ALNs macrometastasis.

Conclusion

It is possible to identify a group of patients whose burden of axillary disease is acceptably low enough that SLNB can be avoided. Feasibility of a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial (RCT) in a select group of patients with or without SLNB has been explored to compare the distant disease free, disease free and overall survival and axillary relapse rate (ARR).

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Reynolds C, Mick R, Donohue JH, Grant CS, Farley, Callans LS, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy with metastasis: can axillary dissection be avoided in some patients with breast cancer? J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(6):1720–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, Beitsch PD, Whitworth PW, Blumencranz PW, 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(6):569–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Morrow M, Giuliano AE. To cut is to cure: can we really apply Z11 in practice? Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(9):2413–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dixon JM. Do we need another trial or a change in practice. http://www.associationofbreastsurgery.org.uk/abs-conferences/past-meetings/abs-conference-agm-2012.aspx. Accessed 14 Apr 2013.

  5. Gentilini O, Veronesi U. Abandoning sentinel lymph node biopsy in early breast cancer? A new trial in progress at the European Institute of Oncology of Milan (SOUND: Sentinel node vs Observation after axillary UltraSouND). The Breast. 2012. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2012.06.013.

  6. Veronesi U, Orecchia R, Zurrida S, Galimberti V, Luini A, Veronesi P, et al. Avoiding axillary dissection in breast cancer surgery: a randomized trial to assess the role of axillary radiotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2005;16(3):383–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wang Z, Wu LC, Chen JQ. Sentinel lymph node biopsy compared with axillary lymph node dissection in early breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;129(3):675–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tanis PJ, Nieweg OE, Valdés Olmos RA, Peterse JL, Rutgers EJ, et al. Impact of non-axillary sentinel node biopsy on staging and treatment of breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2002;87(7):705–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lucci A, McCall LM, Beitsch PD, Whitworth PW, Reintgen DS, Blumencranz PW, American College of Surgeons Oncology Group, 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(24):3657–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sprung J, Tully MJ, Ziser A. Anaphylactic reactions to isosulfan blue dye during sentinel node lymphadenectomy for breast cancer. Anesth Analg. 2003;96(4):1051–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rescigno J, Zampell JC, Axelrod D. Patterns of axillary surgical care for breast cancer in the era of sentinel lymph node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(3):687–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Silverstein MJ, Skinner KA, Lomis TJ. Predicting axillary nodal positivity in 2282 patients with breast carcinoma. World J Surg. 2001;25(6):767–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nemoto T, Vana J, Bedwani RN, Baker HW, McGregor FH, Murphy GP. Management and survival of female breast cancer: results of a national survey by the American College of Surgeons. Cancer. 1980;45(12):2917–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE. Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer. 1989;63(1):181–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ravdin PM, De Laurentiis M, Vendely T, Clark GM. Prediction of axillary lymph node status in breast cancer patients by use of prognostic indicators. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994;86(23):1771–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ravdin PM. Can patients and tumour characteristics allow prediction of axillary lymph node status? Semin Breast Dis. 1998;1:141–50.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, Kim C, Baker J, Cronin M, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(27):2817–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. van’t Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, He YD, Hart AA, Mao M, et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature. 2002;415(6871):530–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Harbeck N, Jakesz R. St. Gallen 2007: breast cancer treatment consensus report. Breast Care. 2007;2:130–4.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ. Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009. Ann Oncol. 2009;20(8):1319–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practical Guidelines in Oncology, Breast Cancer, Version 2.2011. http://www.nccn.org. Accessed 14 Apr 2013.

  22. Lucci A, Krishnamurthy S, Bhattacharyya A. Circulating tumor cells predict survival in non-metastatic breast cancer. In: Abstract 54-5, San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2011, 6–10 December, 2011.

  23. Luporsi E, André F, Spyratos F, Martin PM, Jacquemier J, Penault-Llorca F et al. Ki-67: level of evidence and methodological considerations for its role in the clinical management of breast cancer: analytical and critical review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. doi:10.1007/s10549-011-1837-z.

  24. de Azambuja E, Cardoso F, de Castro G Jr. Ki-67 as prognostic marker in early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of published studies involving 12,155 patients. Br J Cancer. 2007;96(10):1504–13.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cuzick J, Dowsett M, Pineda S. Prognostic value of a combined estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, Ki-67, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemical score and comparison with the Genomic Health recurrence score in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(32):4273–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tang G, Cuzick J, Costantino JP, Dowsett M, Forbes JF, Crager M, et al. Risk of recurrence and chemotherapy benefit for patients with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: recurrence score alone and integrated with pathologic and clinical factors. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(33):4365–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dowsett M, Cuzick J, Wale C, Forbes J, Mallon EA, Salter J, et al. Prediction of risk of distant recurrence using the 21-gene recurrence score in node-negative and node-positive postmenopausal patients with breast cancer treated with anastrozole or tamoxifen: a TransATAC study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(11):1829-34. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.24.4798.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Straver ME, Meijnen P, van Tienhoven G, van de Velde CJ, Mansel RE, Bogaerts J, et al. Role of axillary clearance after a tumor-positive sentinel node in the administration of adjuvant therapy in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(5):731–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. An audit of the screen detected breast cancers for the year of screening April 2009 to March 2010, produced by West Midlands Cancer Intelligence Unit. http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/publications/baso2009-2010.pdf. Accessed 14 Apr 2013.

  30. Barry M, Kell MR. Re-evaluating the role of axillary lymph node dissection in screen-detected breast cancer patients. Breast. 2012;21(1):58–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Silverstein MJ, Skinner KA, Lomis TJ. Predicting axillary nodal positivity in 2282 patients with breast carcinoma. World J Surg. 2001;25(6):767–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wong JH, Kopald KH, Morton DL. The impact of microinvasion on axillary node metastases and survival in patients with intraductal breast cancer. Arch Surg. 1990;125(10):1298–301 discussion 1301–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Solin LJ, Fowble BL, Yeh IT, Kowalyshyn MJ, Schultz DJ, Weiss MC, et al. Microinvasive ductal carcinoma of the breast treated with breast-conserving surgery and definitive irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992;23(5):961–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Peters GN, Wolff M, Haagensen CD. Tubular carcinoma of the breast. Clinical pathologic correlations based on 100 cases. Ann Surg. 1981;193(2):138–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. McDivitt RW, Boyce W, Gersell D. Tubular carcinoma of the breast. Clinical and pathological observations concerning 135 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 1982;6(5):401–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. della Rovere GQ, Bonomi R, Ashley S, Benson JR. Axillary staging in women with small invasive breast tumours. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2006;32(7):733–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Caudle AS, Hunt KK, Kuerer HM. 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 Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Güth U, Myrick ME, Viehl CT, Schmid SM, Obermann EC, Weber WP, et al. The post ACOSOG Z0011 era: does our new understanding of breast cancer really change clinical practice? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38(8):645–50. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2012.04.018.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Association of Breast Surgery. POSNOC trial (Positive Nodes with Observation or Clearance). Yearbook 2012, http://www.associationofbreastsurgery.org.uk/publications-guidelines/overview.aspx, pp 73–74.

  40. Mansel RE, Fallowfield L, Kissin M, Goyal A, Newcombe RG, Dixon JM, et al. Randomized multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy versus standard axillary treatment in operable breast cancer: the ALMANAC Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(9):599–609.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Nice. http://www.nice.org.uk CG80NICE Guideline, Feb 2009.

  42. 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. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(18):2946–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. NHS Technology Adoption Centre. Sentinel lymph node assay. http://www.ntac.nhs.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.aspx?lID=465&Sid. Accessed 14 Apr 2013.

  44. Sullivan R, Peppercorn J, Sikora K, et al. Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(10):933–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Melisko M, Lin A, Rugo H. Adjuvant therapy for early stage breast cancer (EBC): distant disease-free survival (DDFS) as a predictor of overall survival (OS). J Clin Oncol. 2007; p 583 [2007 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings Part I. Vol 25, No. 18S (June 20 Supplement)].

Download references

Acknowledgments

No funding received from any source.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Breast Surgery, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Chorley, Cheshire, UK

    R. M. Nadeem

Authors
  1. R. M. Nadeem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. M. Nadeem.

About this article

Cite this article

Nadeem, R.M. The feasibility of a randomised controlled trial for the axillary management of a select group of invasive breast cancer patients: SLNB vs. no-SLNB. Breast Cancer 22, 343–349 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-013-0484-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-013-0484-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation