Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 21, Issue 13, pp 4098–4103 | Cite as

Triple-Negative Breast Cancer is Not Associated with Increased Likelihood of Nodal Metastases

  • Alexandra Gangi
  • James Mirocha
  • Trista Leong
  • Armando E. Giuliano
Breast Oncology

Abstract

Background

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a highly aggressive subtype of breast cancer. The purpose of this study was to determine if patients with TNBC have a higher risk of lymph node (LN) metastases.

Methods

A prospective database review identified 3,289 patients treated with a mastectomy or with breast-conserving surgery between January 2000 and May 2012. The final analysis included those patients who underwent sentinel node biopsy (SNB) and/or axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), and the following information: age at diagnosis, tumor size, grade, stage, histologic subtype, presence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI), and the status of estrogen, progesterone, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2).

Results

A total of 2,967 patients met the inclusion criteria. SNB was performed in 1,094 patients, ALND in 756, and both SNB and ALND in 1,117 patients. LN metastases were detected in 1,050 (35 %) patients. On univariate analysis, the LN positivity varied across subtypes with 33 % in luminal A, 42 % in luminal B, 39 % in TNBC, and 45 % in HER-2 (p = 0.0007). However, on multivariable analysis, there was no difference in LN positivity among subtypes. Age <50, grade 2 or 3 tumors, size ≥2 cm, and presence of LVI were significant predictors of LN positivity. Four or more involved nodes were observed most commonly in the HER2 (19.4 %) and luminal B (13.7 %) subtypes, but only 9.4 % in TNBC (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Predictors of LN metastases include younger age, higher grade, larger tumor size, and presence of LVI. Patients with TNBC are not more likely to have involved nodes than those with non-TNBC.

Keywords

Breast Cancer Estrogen Receptor Progesterone Receptor Sentinel Node Biopsy Lymph Node Positivity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Disclosure

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Bevilacqua JLB, Kattan MW, Fey JV, Cody HS 3rd, Borgen PI, Van Zee KJ. Doctor, what are my chances of having a positive sentinel node? A validated nomogram for risk estimation. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(24):3670–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yoshihara E, Smeets A, Laenen A, et al. Predictors of axillary lymph node metastases in early breast cancer and their applicability in clinical practice. Breast. 2013;22(3):357–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hwang RF, Krishnamurthy S, Hunt KK, et al. Clinicopathologic factors predicting involvement of nonsentinel axillary nodes in women with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10(3):248–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Perou CM, Sørlie T, Eisen MB, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406(6797):747–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van Zee KJ, Kattan MW. Validating a predictive model for presence of additional disease in the non-sentinel lymph nodes of a woman with sentinel node positive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14(8):2177–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sotiriou C, Neo S-Y, McShane LM, et al. Breast cancer classification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100(18):10393–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(15 Pt 1):4429–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Montagna E, Maisonneuve P, Rotmensz N, et al. Heterogeneity of triple-negative breast cancer: histologic subtyping to inform the outcome. Clin Breast Cancer. 2013;13(1):31–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sørlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001;98(19):10869–74.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arvold ND, Taghian AG, Niemierko A, et al. Age, breast cancer subtype approximation, and local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(29):3885–91.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reyal F, Rouzier R, Depont-Hazelzet B, et al. The molecular subtype classification is a determinant of sentinel node positivity in early breast carcinoma. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(5):e20297.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Freedman GM, Anderson PR, Li T, Nicolaou N. Locoregional recurrence of triple-negative breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery and radiation. Cancer. 2009;115(5):946–51.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gangi A, Chung A, Mirocha J, Liou DZ, Leong T, Giuliano AE. Breast-conserving therapy for triple-negative breast cancer. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(3):252–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ragage F, Debled M, MacGrogan G, et al. Is it useful to detect lymphovascular invasion in lymph node-positive patients with primary operable breast cancer? Cancer. 2010;116(13):3093–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rivadeneira DE, Simmons RM, Christos PJ, Hanna K, Daly JM, Osborne MP. Predictive factors associated with axillary lymph node metastases in T1a and T1b breast carcinomas: analysis in more than 900 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2000;191(1):1–6; discussion 6–8.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Viale G, Zurrida S, Maiorano E, et al. Predicting the status of axillary sentinel lymph nodes in 4351 patients with invasive breast carcinoma treated in a single institution. Cancer. 2005;103(3):492–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Silverstein MJ, Skinner KA, Lomis TJ. Predicting axillary nodal positivity in 2282 patients with breast carcinoma. World J Surg. 2001;25(6):767–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mustafa IA, Cole B, Wanebo HJ, Bland KI, Chang HR. The impact of histopathology on nodal metastases in minimal breast cancer. Arch Surg. 1997;132(4):384–90; discussion 390–1.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harden SP, Neal AJ, Al-Nasiri N, Ashley S, Querci della Rovere G. Predicting axillary lymph node metastases in patients with T1 infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast. Breast. 2001;10(2):155–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Woo CS, Silberman H, Nakamura SK, Ye W, Sposto R, Colburn W, et al. Lymph node status combined with lymphovascular invasion creates a more powerful tool for predicting outcome in patients with invasive breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2002;184(4):337–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Crabb SJ, Cheang MCU, Leung S, et al. Basal breast cancer molecular subtype predicts for lower incidence of axillary lymph node metastases in primary breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2008;8(3):249–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wiechmann L, Sampson M, Stempel M, et al. Presenting features of breast cancer differ by molecular subtype. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(10):2705–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandra Gangi
    • 1
  • James Mirocha
    • 2
  • Trista Leong
    • 3
  • Armando E. Giuliano
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryCedars-Sinai Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiostatisticsCedars-Sinai Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Department of Health InformationCedars-Sinai Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations