Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Breast cancer is the most common non-cutaneous malignancy in women, with an average age at breast cancer diagnosis of 62 years.1 Furthermore, in a recent study of 1.2 million patients in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) diagnosed with breast cancer, 17.5% of women were aged 75 years or older. The older patients were more likely to be diagnosed with more favorable tumor phenotypes and less likely to receive aggressive therapies, compared with the youngest cohort.2 However, older patients also had worse survival outcomes,2 which may be attributed in part to competing comorbidities. As such, numerous studies have sought to explore the role of de-escalation of local-regional therapies in this unique population,3,4,5,6 which also has implications for decreased cost.7
Similar to others aiming to optimize care for older patients with breast cancer, Castelo et al. sought to evaluate the impact of de-escalating axillary staging (AS). In this recently published retrospective study of 17,370 women aged 65–95 years diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer in Ontario (2010–2016), the authors reported the impact of omitting AS on survival.8 One of the strengths of this study was the statistical approach employed to address confounding, which included a propensity score for AS based on age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, socioeconomic status, tumor size, estrogen receptor (ER)/progesterone receptor (PR) status, tumor grade, Charlson comorbidity score, breast surgery type, histology, and history of cancer. After propensity score weighting and adjustment, AS omission was associated with worse overall survival (OS), but no difference in breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) was observed.
These findings are consistent with other recent work in the field. Chagpar et al. similarly demonstrated that AS omission was associated with worse survival in 157,584 older women in the NCDB, after adjustment for patient and disease characteristics.9 However, using data from 115,059 patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, this group also demonstrated a lower BCSS in patients where AS was omitted.9 This difference in BCSS was not replicated in the present study by Castelo et al. who found no difference in BCSS between patients with and without AS. This contrast in outcomes may be partially attributed to the different statistical methods used in each study, and the approach by Castelo et al. to minimize confounding by using the propensity score is likely the more rigorous evaluation.
The Choosing Wisely Guidelines from the Society of Surgical Oncology recommend against routine AS in clinically node-negative women ≥ 70 years of age with early-stage hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative invasive breast cancer.10 In a subgroup analysis of patients meeting these criteria, Castelo et al. demonstrated findings similar to their overall outcomes, meaning that while OS was worse with AS omission in patients meeting the Choosing Wisely criteria, even after adjustment, BCSS was not significantly different between those who did and did not receive AS. Since publication of the Choosing Wisely Guidelines in 2016, they have been somewhat controversial, with surgeons citing the influence of AS on multidisciplinary management as a large factor in its continued use.11,12 Regardless, the findings by Castelo et al. support the recommendation in the Choosing Wisely Guidelines to limit the use of AS in older women with select disease characteristics based on the similar BCSS outcomes.
Notably, however, Castelo et al. also reported the influence of AS in the adjuvant management of breast cancer in older patients. More specifically, they found that patients without AS were less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and breast/chest wall radiotherapy, even after propensity score weighting. This finding remained significant across all subgroup analyses and is consistent with previous reports that older patients who undergo AS and are found to have positive lymph nodes are more likely to receive adjuvant treatment.12,13 However, Castelo et al. also found that patients without AS were more likely to receive axillary radiotherapy, which is a unique finding that has not been previously well studied. For patients who did not undergo AS, they were more likely to have larger tumors, which differs from previous studies where patients without AS were more likely to have more favorable disease characteristics.12 Therefore, this finding of larger tumors in patients without AS may partially account for the higher rate of axillary radiation observed with AS omission in this study.
In today’s era of personalized medicine, we must continually re-evaluate which surgical approaches are influencing treatment decisions and which ones are improving outcomes. Axillary surgery has changed significantly over the past few decades for all breast cancer patients based on several randomized controlled trials, going from axillary dissections for all patients, to sentinel lymph node biopsies for select patients, and now to sentinel lymph node biopsies for many patients.14,15 As such, the only option for continued de-escalation is omission, which is an active area of ongoing research.16,17,18,19 Although a sentinel lymph node biopsy is not associated with significant morbidity, there are some risks to consider, including pain, seroma formation, and lymphedema.20 In addition, some consider axillary surgery in older patients to be low-value care.21 Taken together with the recent findings by Castelo et al., surgeons should continue to omit AS in select older patients with breast cancer.
References
Key Statistics for Breast Cancer: how common is breast cancer? American Cancer Society. Published 2023, updated 12 Jan 2023. Available at: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/about/how-common-is-breast-cancer.html. Accessed 9 Feb 2023.
Plichta JK, Thomas SM, Vernon R, et al. Breast cancer tumor histopathology, stage at presentation, and treatment in the extremes of age. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020;180(1):227–35.
Hughes KS, Schnaper LA, Bellon JR, et al. Lumpectomy plus tamoxifen with or without irradiation in women age 70 years or older with early breast cancer: long-term follow-up of CALGB 9343. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(19):2382–7.
Kunkler IH, Williams LJ, Jack WJ, Cameron DA, Dixon JM. Breast-conserving surgery with or without irradiation in women aged 65 years or older with early breast cancer (PRIME II): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(3):266–73.
Marks CE, Ren Y, Rosenberger LH, et al. Surgical management of the axilla in elderly women with node-positive breast cancer. J Surg Res. 2020;254:275–85.
Weiser R, Polychronopoulou E, Kuo YF, et al. De-escalation of endocrine therapy in early hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: when is local treatment enough? Ann Surg. 2021;274(4):654–63.
Bredbeck BC, Baskin AS, Wang T, et al. Incremental spending associated with low-value treatments in older women with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29(2):1051–9. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-10807-3.
Castelo M, Sutradhar R, Faught N, et al. The association between surgical axillary staging, adjuvant treatment use and survival in older women with early stage breast cancer: a population-based study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-13274-0.
Chagpar AB, Hatzis C, Pusztai L, et al. Association of LN evaluation with survival in women aged 70 years or older with clinically node-negative hormone receptor positive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(10):3073–81. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-5936-x.
Sentinel node biopsy|Choosing Wisely. 2016.
Smith ME, Vitous CA, Hughes TM, Shubeck SP, Jagsi R, Dossett LA. Barriers and facilitators to de-implementation of the choosing wisely® guidelines for low-value breast cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27(8):2653–63. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08285-0.
Tamirisa N, Thomas SM, Fayanju OM, et al. Axillary nodal evaluation in elderly breast cancer patients: potential effects on treatment decisions and survival. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(10):2890–8. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6595-2.
Chagpar AB, Horowitz N, Sanft T, et al. Does lymph node status influence adjuvant therapy decision-making in women 70 years of age or older with clinically node negative hormone receptor positive breast cancer? Am J Surg. 2017;214(6):1082–8.
Fisher CS, Margenthaler JA, Hunt KK, Schwartz T. The landmark series: axillary management in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27(3):724–9. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-08154-5.
Jatoi I, Kunkler IH. Omission of sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer: historical context and future perspectives on a modern controversy. Cancer. 2021;127(23):4376–83.
Gentilini O, Veronesi U. Abandoning sentinel lymph node biopsy in early breast cancer? A new trial in progress at the European Institute of Oncology of Milan (SOUND: Sentinel node vs Observation after axillary UltraSouND). Breast. 2012;21(5):678–81.
Jung JG, Ahn SH, Lee S, et al. No axillary surgical treatment for lymph node-negative patients after ultra-sonography [NAUTILUS]: protocol of a prospective randomized clinical trial. BMC Cancer. 2022;22(1):189.
Reimer T, Engel J, Schmidt M, Offersen BV, Smidt ML, Gentilini OD. Is axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy required in patients who undergo primary breast surgery? Breast Care (Basel). 2018;13(5):324–30.
van Roozendaal LM, Vane MLG, van Dalen T, et al. Clinically node negative breast cancer patients undergoing breast conserving therapy, sentinel lymph node procedure versus follow-up: a Dutch randomized controlled multicentre trial (BOOG 2013–08). BMC Cancer. 2017;17(1):459.
Reimer T, Stachs A, Veselinovic K, et al. Patient-reported outcomes for the Intergroup Sentinel Mamma study (INSEMA): a randomised trial with persistent impact of axillary surgery on arm and breast symptoms in patients with early breast cancer. EClinicalMedicine. 2023;55:101756.
Greenup RA, Prakash I, Sorenson C. “Choosing wisely” in breast cancer surgery: drivers of low value care. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27(8):2577–9. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08584-6.
Funding
Jennifer K. Plichta is supported by the National Institutes of Health Office of Women’s Research Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health K12HD043446 (PI: Amundsen).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
DISCLOSURES
The authors report no proprietary or commercial interest in any product mentioned or concept discussed in this article. Jennifer K. Plichta was the recipient of research funding by the Color Foundation (PI: Plichta). She serves on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Breast Cancer Screening Committee. The content of this manuscript is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Record, S.M., Plichta, J.K. De-Escalation of Axillary Surgery for Older Patients with Breast Cancer: Supporting Data Continue to Accumulate. Ann Surg Oncol 30, 3882–3884 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-13299-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-13299-5