Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 26, Issue 13, pp 4326–4336 | Cite as

Patterns of Axillary Management in Stages 2 and 3 Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer by Initial Treatment Approach

  • Anna Weiss
  • Stephanie Wong
  • Mehra Golshan
  • Rachel A. Freedman
  • Otto Metzger
  • Jennifer Bellon
  • Elizabeth A. Mittendorf
  • Tari A. KingEmail author
Breast Oncology



Data regarding axillary management after neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) are lacking. This study examined axillary management of hormone receptor-positive (HR+) patients based on initial treatment with NET, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), or upfront surgery.


Patients with stage 2 or 3 HR+/HER2− breast cancer treated between 2012 and 2015 were identified in the National Cancer Database. The study examined axillary surgery [sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), SLNB followed by axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), or upfront ALND] by initial treatment stratified by cN0/N1 using pairwise comparisons and multivariable logistic regression.


Of 92,204 eligible patients, 2138 (2.3%) received NET, 11,014 (12%) received NAC, and 79,052 (85.7%) received surgery. Among 60,998 cN0 patients, attempted SLNB was more likely for surgery patients (86.2%, 47,159/54,684) and NET patients (85.8%, 1342/1564) than for NAC patients (79.9%, 3793/4750) (both p < 0.001). Among 31,206 cN1 patients, attempted SLNB was more likely for the surgery patients (46.0%, 11,201/24,368) than for the NET patients (41.8%, 240/574; p = 0.05) or the NAC patients (39.8%, 2491/6264; p < 0.0001). The differences between surgery and NET did not persist in the adjusted analyses. Among both the cN0 patients (n = 13,856) and the cN1 patients (n = 8688) with pN1 disease shown by SLNB, the NET patients were treated with ALND less frequently than those receiving NAC or surgery (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). In the multivariate analysis, for the patients with pN1 disease shown by SLNB, NET use was associated with increased odds of undergoing SLNB alone [cN0 patients: odds ratio (OR), 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04–1.64; cN1 patients: OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.00–2.10].


For stages 2 and 3 HR+/HER2− patients, SLNB use after NET was similar to that for upfront surgery. Among those with pN1 disease, the NET patients were less likely to undergo ALND. Additional outcomes data are needed to guide axillary management after NET.



R. Freedman receives institutional funding from Eisai, and Puma. O. Metzger receives honoraria from Grupo Oncoclinicas and Roche Brasil; institutional funding from Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Eisai, Cascadian Therapeutics, and Abbvie; and travel, accommodations, and expenses from Grupo Oncoclinicas. J. Bellon receives honoraria from UpToDate, Wolters Kluwer, The International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics, Leidos Pharmaceuticals, Accuray, and research funding from Prosigna. E. Mittendorf receives compensation for serving on advisory boards at Astra-Zeneca/Medimmune, Celgene, Genentech, Genomic Health, Merck, Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, SELLAS Lifesciences, and TapImmune. While at a previous institution (MD Anderson), E. Mittendorf received institutional funding from Astra-Zeneca/Medimmune, EMD-Serono, Galena Biopharma, and Genentech. T. King receives an honorarium (speaker fee) from Genomic Health. None of the other authors report disclosures.

Supplementary material

10434_2019_7785_MOESM1_ESM.docx (53 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 52 kb)


  1. 1.
    Galimberti V, Cole BF, Zurrida S, 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;14:297–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sola M, Alberro JA, Fraile M, et al. Complete axillary lymph node dissection versus clinical follow-up in breast cancer patients with sentinel node micrometastasis: final results from the multicenter clinical trial AATRM 048/13/2000. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:120–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, et al. Axillary dissection vs. no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2011;305:569–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Savolt A, Musonda P, Matrai Z, et al. Optimal treatment of the axilla after positive sentinel lymph node biopsy in early invasive breast cancer: early results of the OTOASOR trial. Orv Hetil. 2013;154:1934–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:1303–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Galimberti V, Cole BF, Viale G, et al. Axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with breast cancer and sentinel-node micrometastases (IBCSG 23-01): 10-year follow-up of a randomised, controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:1385–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giuliano AE, Ballman K, McCall L, et al. Locoregional recurrence after sentinel lymph node dissection with or without axillary dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node metastases: long-term follow-up from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (Alliance) ACOSOG Z0011 randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2016;264:413–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giuliano AE, Ballman KV, McCall L, 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;318:918–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Savolt A, Peley G, Polgar C, et al. Eight-year follow-up result of the OTOASOR trial: the optimal treatment of the axilla: surgery or radiotherapy after positive sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer: a randomized, single-centre, phase III, non-inferiority trial. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43:672–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parulekar WR, Berrang T, Kong I, et al. Cctg MA.39 tailor RT: a randomized trial of regional radiotherapy in biomarker low-risk node-positive breast cancer (NCT03488693). J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(15_suppl):abstract TPS602.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA, et al. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer: the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310:1455–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuehn T, Bauerfeind I, Fehm T, et al. Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy in patients with breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (SENTINA): a prospective, multicentre cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:609–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boileau JF, Poirier B, Basik M, et al. Sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer: the SN FNAC study. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:258–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA, et al. Factors affecting sentinel lymph node identification rate after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer patients enrolled in ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance). Ann Surg. 2015;261:547–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boughey JC, Ballman KV, Le-Petross HT, et al. Identification and resection of clipped node decreases the false-negative rate of sentinel lymph node surgery in patients presenting with node-positive breast cancer (T0-T4, N1-N2) who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results from ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance). Ann Surg. 2016;263:802–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Caudle AS, Yang WT, Krishnamurthy S, et al. Improved axillary evaluation following neoadjuvant therapy for patients with node-positive breast cancer using selective evaluation of clipped nodes: implementation of targeted axillary dissection. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1072–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Romano PS, Roos LL, Jollis JG. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data: differing perspectives. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46:1075–9; discussion 1081–90.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mamtani A, Barrio AV, King TA, et al. How often does neoadjuvant chemotherapy avoid axillary dissection in patients with histologically confirmed nodal metastases? Results of a prospective study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3467–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nguyen TT, Hoskin TL, Day CN, et al. Decreasing use of axillary dissection in node-positive breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:2596–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kantor O, Pesce C, Liederbach E, Wang CH, Winchester DJ, Yao K. Are the ACOSOG Z0011 trial findings being applied to breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy? Breast J. 2017;23:554–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yao K, Liederbach E, Pesce C, Wang CH, Winchester DJ. Impact of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 randomized trial on the number of axillary nodes removed for patients with early-stage breast cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221:71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weiss A, Mittendorf EA, DeSnyder SM, et al. Expanding implementation of ACOSOG Z0011 in surgeon practice. Clin Breast Cancer. 2017;13:30412–3.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Al-Hilli Z, Hoskin TL, Day CN, Habermann EB, Boughey JC. Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on nodal disease and nodal surgery by tumor subtype. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;27:017–6263.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pilewskie M, Zabor EC, Mamtani A, Barrio AV, Stempel M, Morrow M. The optimal treatment plan to avoid axillary lymph node dissection in early-stage breast cancer patients differs by surgical strategy and tumor subtype. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:3527–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ellis MJ, Suman VJ, Hoog J, et al. Randomized phase II neoadjuvant comparison between letrozole, anastrozole, and exemestane for postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-rich stage 2 to 3 breast cancer: clinical and biomarker outcomes and predictive value of the baseline PAM50-based intrinsic subtype—ACOSOG Z1031. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2342–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chiba A, Hoskin TL, Heins CN, Hunt KK, Habermann EB, Boughey JC. Trends in neoadjuvant endocrine therapy use and impact on rates of breast conservation in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: a National Cancer Data Base study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:418–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ellis MJ, Suman VJ, Hoog J, et al. Ki67 Proliferation Index as a tool for chemotherapy decisions during and after neoadjuvant aromatase inhibitor treatment of breast cancer: results from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z1031 Trial (Alliance). J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:1061–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pilewskie M, Jochelson M, Gooch JC, Patil S, Stempel M, Morrow M. Is preoperative axillary imaging beneficial in identifying clinically node-negative patients requiring axillary lymph node dissection? J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222:138–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Harris CK, Tran HT, Lee K, et al. Positive ultrasound-guided lymph node needle biopsy in breast cancer may not mandate axillary lymph node dissection. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:3004–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Recht A, Comen EA, Fine RE, et al. Postmastectomy radiotherapy: an American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology Focused Guideline update. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2016;6:e219–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    A Randomized Phase III Clinical Trial Evaluating Post-Mastectomy Chestwall and Regional Nodal XRT and Post-Lumpectomy Regional Nodal XRT in Patients With Positive Axillary Nodes Before Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Who Convert to Pathologically Negative Axillary Nodes After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Retrieved 15 December 2018 at
  32. 32.
    Caudle AS, Yu TK, Tucker SL, et al. Local-regional control according to surrogate markers of breast cancer subtypes and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients undergoing breast-conserving therapy. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14:R83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Swisher SK, Vila J, Tucker SL, et al. Locoregional control according to breast cancer subtype and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients undergoing breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:749–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yang TJ, Morrow M, Modi S, et al. The effect of molecular subtype and residual disease on locoregional recurrence in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and postmastectomy radiation. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(Suppl 3):S495–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    A Randomized Phase III Trial Comparing Axillary Lymph Node Dissection to Axillary Radiation in Breast Cancer Patients (cT1–3N1) Who Have Positive Sentinel Lymph Node Disease After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Retrieved 15 December 2018 at

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Weiss
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stephanie Wong
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mehra Golshan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rachel A. Freedman
    • 2
  • Otto Metzger
    • 2
  • Jennifer Bellon
    • 3
    • 4
  • Elizabeth A. Mittendorf
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tari A. King
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of Breast Surgery, Department of SurgeryBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  2. 2.Breast Oncology ProgramDana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer CenterBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Radiation OncologyBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Radiation OncologyDana-Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations