A Population-Based Study of the Effects of a Regional Guideline for Completion Axillary Lymph Node Dissection on Axillary Surgery in Patients with Breast Cancer
Evidence from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011 trial suggests completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) after positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (+SLNB) does not improve outcomes in select patients, leading to practice variation. A multidisciplinary group of surgeons, oncologists, and pathologists developed a regional guideline for cALND which was disseminated in August 2012. We assessed the impact of Z0011 and the regional guideline on cALND rates.
Consecutive invasive breast cancer cases undergoing SLNB were reviewed at 12 hospitals. Patient, tumor, and process measures were collected for three time periods: TP1, before publication of Z0011 (May 2009–August 2010); TP2, after publication of Z0011 (March 2011–June 2012); and TP3, after guideline dissemination (January 2013–April 2014). Cases were categorized by whether they met the guideline criteria for cALND (i.e. ≤50 years, mastectomy, T3 tumor, three or more positive sentinel lymph nodes [SLNs]) or not (e.g. age > 50 years, breast-conserving surgery, T1/T2 tumor, and one to two positive SLNs).
The SLNB rate increased from 56 % (n = 620), to 70 % (n = 774), to 78 % (n = 844) in TP1, TP2, and TP3, respectively. Among cases not recommended for cALND using the guideline criteria, cALND rates decreased significantly over time (TP1, 71 %; TP2, 43 %; TP3, 17 %) [p < 0.001]. The cALND rate also decreased over time among cases recommended to have cALND using the guideline criteria (TP1, 92 %; TP2, 69 %; TP3, 58 %) [p < 0.001]. Based on multivariable analysis, age and nodal factors appeared to be significant factors for cALND decision making.
Publication of ACOSOG Z0011 and regional guideline dissemination were associated with a marked decrease in cALND after +SLNB, even among several cases in which the guideline recommended cALND.
KeywordsBreast Cancer Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Axillary Lymph Node Dissection Lymph Node Ratio Positive Sentinel Lymph Node
The authors would like to thank Dyda Dao, Dominika Bhatia, and Olivia Lovrics for their assistance with data collection and management.
Funding was provided by the Hamilton Academic Health Sciences Organization (HAHSO) Innovation Grant, and by funds from the Department of Surgery, McMaster University and the McMaster Buffet Taylor Breast Cancer Research Chair, Department of Oncology, McMaster University. The funding sources played no role in the design, conduct, or reporting of this study.
Miriam W. Tsao, Sylvie D. Cornacchi, Nicole Hodgson, Marko Simunovic, Lehana Thabane, Ji Cheng, Mary Ann O’Brien, Barbara Strang, Som D. Mukherjee, and Peter J. Lovrics have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
- 1.Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, et al. Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary lymph node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomized phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:927–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 3.The American Society of Breast Surgeons Board of Directors. Position statement on management of the axilla in patients with invasive breast cancer. https://www.breastsurgeons.org/statements/index.php. Accessed 22 June 2016.
- 5.George R, Quan ML, McCready D, et al. Expert panel on SLNB in breast cancer. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. Toronto, ON: Cancer Care Ontario, Jul 14 2009. Program in Evidence-Based Care Evidence-Based Series No.: 17–5. https://www.cancercare.on.ca/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=45870. Accessed 22 June 2016.
- 24.O’Brien MA, Oxman AD, Davis DA, et al. Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):CD000409.Google Scholar
- 25.American Society of Breast Surgeons. Performance and practice guidelines for axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer patients—Nov. 2014. https://www.breastsurgeons.org/new_layout/about/statements/PDF_Statements/PerformancePracticeGuidelines_ALND.pdf. Accessed Dec 2015.
- 27.National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology V3.2015. www.consensocancermamario.com/guias/NCCN_2015.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2016.
- 29.Tsao MW, Cornacchi SD, Lovrics PJ, et al. Factors affecting the implementation of a regional guideline for completion axillary lymph node dissection: a qualitative study of physician opinions. Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (ARCC) Conference 2016, Toronto, ON. 2016. http://cc-arcc.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2015/12/Final-Web-ARCC-Program.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2016.
- 33.Doherty S. History of evidence-based medicine. Oranges, chloride of lime and leeches: barriers to teaching old dogs new tricks. Emerg Med Australas. 2005;17:314–21.Google Scholar
- 34.Langer I, Guller U, Berclaz G, et al. Morbidity of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLN) alone versus SLN and completion axillary lymph node dissection after breast cancer surgery: a prospective Swiss multicenter study on 659 patients. Ann Surg. 2007;245(3):452–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 35.Yi M, Giordano SH, Meric-Bernstam F, et al. Trends in and outcomes from sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) alone vs. SLNB with axillary lymph node dissection for node-positive breast cancer patients: experience from the SEER database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:343–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 38.Donker M, Van Tienhoven G, Straver ME, et al. Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer (EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS): a randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(12):1303–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 40.Wang J, Mittendorf EA, Sahin AA, et al. Outcomes of sentinel lymph node dissection alone vs. axillary lymph node dissection in early stage invasive lobular carcinoma: a retrospective study of the surveillance, epidemiology and end results (SEER) database. PLoS One. 2014;9:e89778.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar