Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Points communs et différences entre les divers nomogrammes validés pour le calcul du risque d’envahissement ganglionnaire

  • Conference paper
Cancer du sein

  • 541 Accesses

Résumé

En cas d’envahissement métastatique du ganglion sentinelle (GS) chez les patientes ayant un cancer du sein, un curage axillaire (CA) est recommandé. Cependant, dans 40 à 70 % des cas, les ganglions non sentinelles (GNS) sont indemnes [1–4]. être capable de prédire l’absence de maladie résiduelle dans les GNS en cas d’envahissement des GS permettrait d’éviter un curage axillaire chez ces patientes [1–9]. Des facteurs prédictifs d’envahissement des GNS en cas de GS métastatiques ont été mis en évidence dans de nombreuses études [1, 2, 4, 5, 10–13]. Cependant, les performances d’un facteur prédictif pris isolément sont insuffisantes, y compris pour celles apparemment associées à un très faible risque d’envahissement des GNS (micrométastase et a fortiori cellules isolées, taille tumorale inférieure à 10 mm, absence de rupture capsulaire, GS métastatique unique) [2, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13]. Dans ce contexte, l’utilisation de prédicteurs clinicopathologiques peut s’avérer très utile pour sélectionner les patientes ne nécessitant pas de CA ou d’un traitement axillaire complémentaire.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. Chu KU, Turner RR, Hansen NM et al. (1999) Do all patients with sentinel node metastasis from breast carcinoma need complete axillary node dissection? Ann Surg 229: 536–541

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hwang RF, Krishnamurthy S, Hunt KK et al. (2003) Clinicopathologic factors predicting involvement of nonsentinel axillary nodes in women with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 10: 248–254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kim T, Giuliano AE, Lyman GH (2006) Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast carcinoma: a metaanalysis. Cancer 106: 4–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Nos C, Harding-MacKean C, Freneaux P et al. (2003) Prediction of tumour involvement in remaining axillary lymph nodes when the sentinel node in a woman with breast cancer contains metastases. Br J Surg 90: 1354–1360

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Coutant C, Morel O, Antoine M et al. (2007) Is axillary lymph node dissection always necessary in breast cancer patients with a positive sentinel node? J Chir (Paris) 144: 492–501

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Coutant C, Olivier C, Lambaudie E et al. (2009) 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 27: 2800–2808

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Coutant C, Rouzier R, Fondrinier E et al. (2009) Validation of the Tenon breast cancer score for predicting non-sentinel lymph node status in breast cancer patients with sentinel lymph node metastasis: a prospective multicenter study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 113: 537–543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Coutant C, Rouzier R, Olivier C et al. (2009) Models to predict non sentinel lymph node status in breast cancer patients with metastatic sentinel lymph node. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 37: 160–166

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kamath VJ, Giuliano R, Dauway EL et al. (2001) Characteristics of the sentinel lymph node in breast cancer predict further involvement of higher-echelon nodes in the axilla: a study to evaluate the need for complete axillary lymph node dissection. Arch Surg 136: 688–692

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Barranger E, Coutant C, Flahault A et al. (2005) An axilla scoring system to predict non-sentinel lymph node status in breast cancer patients with sentinel lymph node involvement. Breast Cancer Res Treat 91: 113–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Degnim AC, Reynolds C, Pantvaidya G et al. (2005) Nonsentinel node metastasis in breast cancer patients: assessment of an existing and a new predictive nomogram. Am J Surg 190: 543–550

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Van Zee KJ, Manasseh DM, Bevilacqua JL et al. (2003) A nomogram for predicting the likelihood of additional nodal metastases in breast cancer patients with a positive sentinel node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 10: 1140–1151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Viale G, Maiorano E, Pruneri G et al. (2005) Predicting the risk for additional axillary metastases in patients with breast carcinoma and positive sentinel lymph node biopsy. Ann Surg 241: 319–325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pal A, Provenzano E, Duffy SW et al. (2008) A model for predicting non-sentinel lymph node metastatic disease when the sentinel lymph node is positive. Br J Surg 95: 302–309

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kohrt HE, Olshen RA, Bermas HR et al. (2008) New models and online calculator for predicting non-sentinel lymph node status in sentinel lymph node positive breast cancer patients. BMC Cancer 8: 66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Saidi RF, Dudrick PS, Remine SG et al. (2004) Nonsentinel lymph node status after positive sentinel lymph node biopsy in early breast cancer. Am Surg 70: 101–105; discussion 105

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Houvenaeghel G, Nos C, Giard S et al. (2009) A nomogram predictive of non-sentinel lymph node involvement in breast cancer patients with a sentinel lymph node micrometastasis. Eur J Surg Oncol 35: 690–695

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kraemer HC (1992) Evaluating medical test: objective and quantitative guidelines. Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143: 29–36

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Werkoff G, Lambaudie E, Fondrinier E et al. (2009) Prospective multicenter comparison of models to predict four or more involved axillary lymph nodes in patients with breast cancer with ont to three metastatic sentinel lymph nodes. J Clin Oncol 27: 5707–5712

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Alran S, De Rycke Y, Fourchotte V et al. (2007) 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 14: 2195–2201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ponzone R, Maggiorotto F, Mariani L et al. (2007) Comparison of two models for the prediction of nonsentinel node metastases in breast cancer. Am J Surg 193: 686–692

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dauphine CE, Haukoos JS, Vargas MP et al. (2007) Evaluation of three scoring systems predicting non sentinel node metastasis in breast cancer patients with a positive sentinel node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 14: 1014–1019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Stephenson AJ, Smith A, Kattan MW et al. (2005) Integration of gene expression profiling and clinical variables to predict prostate carcinoma recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 104: 290–298

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kocsis L, Svebis M, Boross G et al. (2004) Use and limitations of a nomogram predicting the likelihood of non-sentinel node involvement after a positive sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer patients. Am Surg 70: 1019–1024

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Soni NK, Carmalt HL, Gillett DJ et al. (2005) Evaluation of a breast cancer nomogram for prediction of non-sentinel lymph node positivity. Eur J Surg Oncol 31: 958–964

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Smidt ML, Kuster DM, van der Wilt GJ et al. (2005) Can the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center nomogram predict the likelihood of nonsentinel lymph node metastases in breast cancer patients in the Netherlands? Ann Surg Oncol 12: 1066–1072

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Foekens JA, Atkins D, Zhang Y et al. (2006) Multicenter validation of a gene expression-based prognostic signature in lymph node-negative primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24: 1665–1671

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Lambert LA, Ayers GD, Hwang RF et al. (2006) Validation of a breast cancer nomogram for predicting nonsentinel lymph node metastases after a positive sentinel node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 13: 310–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cripe MH, Beran LC, Liang WC et al. (2006) The likelihood of additional nodal disease following a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer patients: validation of a nomogram. Am J Surg 192: 484–487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bevilacqua JL, Kattan MW, Fey JV et al. (2007) Doctor, what are my chances of having a positive sentinel node? A validated nomogram for risk estimation. J Clin Oncol 25: 3670–3679

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Zgajnar J, Perhavec A, Hocevar M et al. (2007) Low performance of the MSKCC nomogram in preoperatively ultrasonically negative axillary lymph node in breast cancer patients. J Surg Oncol 96: 547–553

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Klar M, Jochmann A, Foeldi M et al. (2008) The MSKCC nomogram for prediction the likelihood of non-sentinel node involvement in a German breast cancer population. Breast Cancer Res Treat 112: 523–531

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. C. Coutant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Chéreau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Bezu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. Darai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Uzan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Rouzier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag France, Paris

About this paper

Cite this paper

Coutant, C., Chéreau, E., Bezu, C., Darai, E., Uzan, S., Rouzier, R. (2012). Points communs et différences entre les divers nomogrammes validés pour le calcul du risque d’envahissement ganglionnaire. In: Cancer du sein. Springer, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-8178-0245-9_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-8178-0245-9_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Paris

  • Print ISBN: 978-2-8178-0244-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-2-8178-0245-9

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation