Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 20, Issue 8, pp 2556–2561 | Cite as

The Exportability of the ACOSOG Z0011 Criteria for Omitting Axillary Lymph Node Dissection After Positive Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Findings: A Multicenter Study

  • Yann Delpech
  • Alexandre Bricou
  • Ruben Lousquy
  • Delphine Hudry
  • Clémentine Jankowski
  • Claire Willecocq
  • Anne Thoury
  • Catherine Loustalot
  • Charles Coutant
  • Emmanuel Barranger
Breast Oncology

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the exportability of the criteria defined by the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 trial for selecting patients who are eligible for omitting completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) after a positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy result and to investigate whether not following the Z0011 criteria might affect patient outcomes.

Methods

From a multicenter database, we selected 188 patients with positive SLNs and then excluded patients with positive SLNs on immunohistochemistry only. We retrospectively applied the Z0011 criteria and grouped the patients as eligible or ineligible for omitting cALND. The eligible group was compared with the cohort included in the Z0011 trial and with the ineligible group. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were calculated for each group, and univariate analyses assessed associations between the groups and clinicopathological variables.

Results

The final analysis involved 125 patients with positive SLNs. Eighty-seven patients (69.6 %) were potentially eligible for omitting cALND. The estrogen receptor status, T stage, grade, and number of positive non-SLNs were not statistically different between the eligible group and the Z0011 cohort. The ineligible group had significantly more positive non-SLNs (P = 0.01) and a lower 5-year overall survival rate than the eligible group (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

The similarity of clinical characteristics between the Z0011 trial cohort and our eligible group confirms the exportability of these criteria to another population. The worse prognosis of patients who did not meet the Z0011 criteria suggests prudence before disregarding or enlarging broadening the indications for omitting cALND.

References

  1. 1.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Clinical pratices guidelines in oncology: breast cancer, version 2.2012. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf. Accessed August 20, 2012.
  2. 2.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giuliano AE, McCall L, Beitsch P, 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;252:426–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caudle AS, Hunt KK, Kuerer HM, et al. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kumar A, Puri R, Gadgil PV, Jatoi I. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in primary breast cancer: window to management of the axilla. World J Surg. 2012;36:1453–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gainer SM, Hunt KK, Beitsch P, Caudle AS, Mittendorf EA, Lucci A. Changing behavior in clinical practice in response to the ACOSOG Z0011 trial: a survey of the American Society of Breast Surgeons. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3152–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guth U, Myrick ME, Viehl CT, Schmid SM, Obermann EC, Weber WP. The post ACOSOG Z0011 era: does our new understanding of breast cancer really change clinical practice? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38:645–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caudle AS, Hunt KK, Tucker SL, et al. American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011: impact on surgeon practice patterns. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3144–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cody HS 3rd. Does the rapid acceptance of ACOSOG Z0011 compromise selection of systemic therapy? Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3643–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feldman SM, Sweatman CA Jr. Sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer: past, present, and future (editorial). Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3123–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haffty BG, Hunt KK, Harris JR, Buchholz TA. Positive sentinel nodes without axillary dissection: implications for the radiation oncologist. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:4479–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lucci A, McCall LM, Beitsch PD, 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;25:3657–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dabakuyo TS, Fraisse J, Causeret S, et al. A multicenter cohort study to compare quality of life in breast cancer patients according to sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary lymph node dissection. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:1352–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goldberg JI, Wiechmann LI, Riedel ER, Morrow M, Van Zee KJ. Morbidity of sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer: the relationship between the number of excised lymph nodes and lymphedema. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:3278–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McLaughlin SA, Wright MJ, Morris KT, et al. Prevalence of lymphedema in women with breast cancer 5 years after sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary dissection: objective measurements. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5213–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jatoi I. Axillary vs sentinel lymph node dissection for invasive breast cancer. JAMA. 2011;305:2288.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yi M, Mittendorf EA, Cormier JN, et al. Novel staging system for predicting disease-specific survival in patients with breast cancer treated with surgery as the first intervention: time to modify the current American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:4654–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Galimberti V, Cole B, Zurrida S, et al. Update of International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 23-01 to compare axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with clinically node negative breast cancer and micrometastases in the sentinel node (abstract). Cancer Res. 2011;71(24 Suppl.):S3–1.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cserni G, Gregori D, Merletti F, et al. Meta-analysis of non–sentinel node metastases associated with micrometastatic sentinel nodes in breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2004;91:1245–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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;16:687–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bilimoria KY, Bentrem DJ, Hansen NM, et al. Comparison of sentinel lymph node biopsy alone and completion axillary lymph node dissection for node-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2946–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pepels MJ, de Boer M, Bult P, et al. Regional recurrence in breast cancer patients with sentinel node micrometastases and isolated tumor cells. Ann Surg. 2012;255:116–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Setton J, Cody H, Tan L, et al. Radiation field design and regional control in sentinel lymph node–positive breast cancer patients with omission of axillary dissection. Cancer. 2012;118:1994–2003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Milgrom S, Cody H, Tan L, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of sentinel node–positive breast cancer patients after total mastectomy without axillary-specific treatment. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3762–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Coutant C, Olivier C, Lambaudie E, et al. Comparison of models to predict nonsentinel lymph node status in breast cancer patients with metastatic sentinel lymph nodes: a prospective multicenter study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2800–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lannin DR, Killelea B, Horowitz N, Chagpar AB. Validation of the Louisville breast sentinel node prediction models and a proposed modification to guide management of the node positive axilla. Am Surg. 2012;78:761–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hiotis K, Ye W, Sposto R, Goldberg J, Mukhi V, Skinner K. The importance of location in determining breast conservation rates. Am J Surg. 2005;190:18–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yann Delpech
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alexandre Bricou
    • 3
  • Ruben Lousquy
    • 2
  • Delphine Hudry
    • 4
  • Clémentine Jankowski
    • 4
  • Claire Willecocq
    • 3
  • Anne Thoury
    • 2
  • Catherine Loustalot
    • 4
  • Charles Coutant
    • 4
  • Emmanuel Barranger
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Breast Medical OncologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsLariboisiere Hospital/AP-HP, The University Denis DiderotParisFrance
  3. 3.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsJean Verdier Hospital/AP-HP, The University Paris NordBondyFrance
  4. 4.Department of Surgical OncologyGeorges Francois Leclerc Cancer Center, The University of BourgogneDijonFrance

Personalised recommendations