Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Novel Factors to Improve Prediction of Nodal Positivity in Patients with Clinical T1/T2 Breast Cancers

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) have established nomograms to predict sentinel node positivity. We propose the addition of two novel variables—distance of tumor from the nipple and from the skin—can improve their performance.

Methods

Ultrasounds of clinical T1/T2 tumors were reviewed. Distances of the tumor from the skin and from the nipple were measured. MSKCC and MDACC nomogram predictions and the AUC–ROC for each model were calculated. The added utility of the two variables was then examined using multiple logistic regression.

Results

Of 401 cancers studied, 79 (19.7 %) were node positive. The mean distance of tumors from the nipple in node-positive patients was 4.9 cm compared with 6.0 cm in node-negative patients (p = 0.0007). The mean distance of tumors from the skin was closer in node-positive cases (0.8 cm) versus node-negative cases (1.0 cm, p = 0.0007). The MSKCC and MDACC nomograms AUC–ROC values were 0.71 (95 % CI 0.64–0.77) and 0.74 (95 % CI 0.68–0.81). When adjusted for the MSKCC predicted probability, addition of both distance from nipple (p = 0.008) and distance from skin (p = 0.02) contributed significantly to prediction of nodal positivity and improved the AUC–ROC to 0.75 (95 % CI 0.70–0.81). Similarly, distance from nipple (p = 0.002), but not distance from skin (p = 0.09), added modestly to the MDACC nomogram performance (AUC 0.77; 95 % CI 0.71–0.83).

Conclusions

Distance of tumor from the nipple and from the skin are important variables associated with nodal positivity. Adding these to established nomograms improves prediction of nodal positivity.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Viale G, Zurrida S, Maiorano E, Mazzarol G, Pruneri G, Paganelli G, et al. Predicting the status of axillary sentinel lymph nodes in 4351 patients with invasive breast carcinoma treated in a single institution. Cancer. 2005;103:492–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fein DA, Fowble BL, Hanlon AL, Hooks MA, Hoffman JP, et al. Identification of women with T1–T2 breast cancer at low risk of positive axillary nodes. J Surg Oncol. 1997;65:34–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Chua B, Ung O, Taylor R, Boyages J. Frequency and predictors of axillary lymph node metastases in invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001;71:723–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosen PP, Groshen S. Factors influencing survival and prognosis in early breast carcinoma (T1N0M0–T1N1M0). Assessment of 644 patients with median follow-up of 18 years. Surg Clin North Am. 1990;70:937–62.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Giuliano AE, McCall L, Beitsch P, Whitworth PW, Blumencranz PW, Leith AM, 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Giuliano AE, McCall L, Beitsch P, 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;305:569–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Harlow SP, Krag DN, Julian TB, Ashikaga T, Weaver DL, Feldman SA, et al. Prerandomization Surgical Training for the NSABP-B32 trial—a randomized phase III clinical trial to compare sentinel node resection to conventional axillary dissection in clinically node negative breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2005;241:48–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Viale G, Luini A, Zurrida S, Galimberti V, et al. A randomized comparison of sentinel node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer. New Eng J Med. 2003;349:546–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Veronesi U, Viale G, Paganelli G, Zurrida S, Luini A, Galimberti V, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: ten-year results of a randomized controlled study. Ann Surg. 2010;251:595–600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Naik AM, Fey J, Gemignani M, Heerdt A, Montgomery L, Petrek J, et al. The risk of axillary relapse after sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer is comparable with that of axillary lymph node dissection: a follow-up study of 4008 procedures. Ann Surg. 2004;240:462–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center breast nomogram web page. http://www.mskcc.org/applications/nomograms/breast/BreastSLNodeMetastasisPage.aspx. Accessed 1 Oct 2012.

  12. MD Anderson Cancer Center nomogram. http://www3.mdanderson.org/app/medcalc/bc_nomograms3/index.cfm?pagename=sln. Accessed 1 Oct 2012.

  13. Bevilacqua JL, 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. 207;25:3670–9.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Veerapong J, Boughey JC, Mittendorf EA, Harrell R, Bassett R, Ross M, et al. A validated risk assessment of sentinel lymph node involvement in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:S59 (Abstract)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Klar M, Foeldi M, Markert S, Gitsch G, Stickeler E, Watermann D. Good prediction of the likelihood for sentinel lymph node metastasis by using the MSKCC nomogram in a German breast cancer population. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1136–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ansari B, Morton M, Adamczyk D, Jones KN, Brodt JK, Degnim AC, et al. Distance of breast cancer from the skin and nipple impacts axillary nodal metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3174–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cunningham JE, Jurj AL, Oman L, Stonerock AE, Nitcheva DK, Cupples TE. Is risk of axillary lymph node metastasis associated with proximity of breast cancer to the skin? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;100:319–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Harrell, FE. Rms: regression modeling strategies. R package version 3.5-0. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rms. Accessed 1 Oct 2012.

  19. Gur AS, Unal B, Johnson R, Ahrendt G, Bonaventura M, Gordon P, et al. Predictive probability of four different breast cancer nomograms for nonsentinel axillary lymph node metastasis in positive sentinel node biopsy. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;229–35. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.10.029.

  20. Cserni G. Comparison of different validation studies on the use of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center nomogram predicting nonsentinel node involvement in sentinel node-positive breast cancer patients. Am J Surg. 2007;194:699–700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Coutant C, Olivier C, Lambaudie E, Fondrinier E, Marchal F, Guillemin F, et al. Comparison of models to predict non-sentinel lymph node status in breast cancer patients with metastatic sentinel lymph nodes: a prospective multicenter study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2800–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Degnim AC, Reynolds C, Pantvaidya G, Zakaria S, Hoskin T, Barnes S, et al. Nonsentinel node metastasis in breast cancer patients: assessment of an existing and a new predictive nomogram. Am J Surg. 2005;190:543–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Alran S, De Rycke Y, Fourchotte V, Charitansky H, Laki F, Falcou MC, Institute Curie Breast Cancer Study Group, et al.Validation and limitations of use of a breast cancer nomogram predicting the likelihood of non-sentinel node involvement after positive sentinel node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2195–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lieberman MA, Goldstein BA. Self-help online: an outcome evaluation of breast cancer bulletin boards. J Health Psychol. 2005;10:855–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Unruh HK, Bowen DJ, Meischke H, Bush N, Wooldridge JA. Women’s approach to the use of new technology for cancer risk information. Women Health. 2004;40:59–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rahusen FD, Torrenga H, van Diest PJ, Pijpers R, Pijpers R, van der Wall E, Licht J, et al. Predictive factors for metastatic involvement of nonsentinel nodes in patients with breast cancer. Arch Surg. 2001;136:1059–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Patani NR, Dwek MV, Douek M. Predictors of axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer: a systemic review. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33:409–19.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Cavalli LR. Molecular markers of breast axillary lymph node metastasis. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2009;9:441–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Cook, NR. Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction. Circulation. 2007;115:928–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Langer I, Guller U, Berclaz G, Koechli OR, Schaer G, Fehr MK, 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;245:452–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Tiffany Torstenson DO, Miraj G. Shah-Khan MD, Jane Case PA & Judy C. Boughey MD

  2. Division of Biomedical Statistics & Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Tanya L. Hoskin MS

  3. Division of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Marilyn J. Morton DO, Darcy L. Adamczyk MD, Katie N. Jones MD & Stephane Chartier BS

Authors
  1. Tiffany Torstenson DO
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Miraj G. Shah-Khan MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tanya L. Hoskin MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marilyn J. Morton DO
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Darcy L. Adamczyk MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Katie N. Jones MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jane Case PA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Stephane Chartier BS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Judy C. Boughey MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judy C. Boughey MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Torstenson, T., Shah-Khan, M.G., Hoskin, T.L. et al. Novel Factors to Improve Prediction of Nodal Positivity in Patients with Clinical T1/T2 Breast Cancers. Ann Surg Oncol 20, 3286–3293 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-3110-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-3110-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation