Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Nomogram to predict the risk of non-sentinel lymph node metastasis in Japanese breast cancer patients

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Surgery Today Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) remains the standard procedure for breast cancer patients with sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastasis; however, additional nodal metastasis is detected in completion ALND in only about 50% of these patients. To identify the risk of non-SLN metastasis, the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) developed a nomogram. Many validation studies have been performed to evaluate the accuracy of the nomogram in Western populations, but not in Asians. We conducted this study to establish the accuracy of the nomogram in a Japanese population.

Methods

The accuracy of the MSKCC nomogram for predicting non-SLN status was tested in 116 consecutive SLN-positive patients in our hospital. We then compared the findings of the source MSKCC study with those of our study. A receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve was plotted, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to assess the discriminative power.

Results

Despite the differences between our patients and the source population in many respects, the area under the ROC curve was 0.73, which was comparable to that obtained in the study on the source population.

Conclusions

The MSKCC nomogram provides a fairly accurate predicted probability for the likelihood of non-SLN metastases. Accordingly, it served as a useful tool for our Japanese patients with SLN metastases.

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. Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Galimberti V, Viale G, Zurrida S, Bedoni M, et al. Sentinel-node biopsy to avoid axillary dissection in breast cancer with clinically negative lymph-nodes. Lancet. 1997;349:1864–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Iwase H, Yamamoto Y, Kawasoe T, Ibusuki M. Advantage of sentinel lymph node biopsy before neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer treatment. Surg Today. 2009;39:374–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Turner RR, Ollila DW, Krasne DL, Giuliano AE. Histopathologic validation of the sentinel lymph node hypothesis for breast carcinoma. Ann Surg. 1997;226:271–6. discussion 76-8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Chu KU, Turner RR, Hansen NM, Brennan MB, Bilchik A, Giuliano AE. Do all patients with sentinel node metastasis from breast carcinoma need complete axillary node dissection? Ann Surg. 1999;229:536–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Giuliano AE, Haigh PI, Brennan MB, Hansen NM, Kelley MC, Ye W, et al. Prospective observational study of sentinel lymphadenectomy without further axillary dissection in patients with sentinel node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:2553–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Unal B, Gur AS, Kayiran O, Johnson R, Ahrendt G, Bonaventura M, et al. Models for predicting non-sentinel lymph node positivity in sentinel node positive breast cancer: the importance of scoring system. Int J Clin Pract. 2008;62:1785–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Van Zee KJ, Manasseh DM, Bevilacqua JL, Boolbol SK, Fey JV, Tan LK, et al. A nomogram for predicting the likelihood of additional nodal metastases in breast cancer patients with a positive sentinel node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10:1140–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Smidt ML, Kuster DM, van der Wilt GJ, Thunnissen FB, Van Zee KJ, Strobbe LJ. 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. 2005;12:1066–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 

  10. Ponzone R, Maggiorotto F, Mariani L, Jacomuzzi ME, Magistris A, Mininanni P, et al. Comparison of two models for the prediction of nonsentinel node metastases in breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2007;193:686–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pal A, Provenzano E, Duffy SW, Pinder SE, Purushotham AD. A model for predicting non-sentinel lymph node metastatic disease when the sentinel lymph node is positive. Br J Surg. 2008;95:302–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Zgajnar J, Perhavec A, Hocevar M, Podkrajsek M, Hertl K, Frkovic-Grazio S, et al. Low performance of the MSKCC nomogram in preoperatively ultrasonically negative axillary lymph node in breast cancer patients. J Surg Oncol. 2007;96:547–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lambert LA, Ayers GD, Hwang RF, Hunt KK, Ross MI, Kuerer HM, et al. Validation of a breast cancer nomogram for predicting nonsentinel lymph node metastases after a positive sentinel node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:310–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cripe MH, Beran LC, Liang WC, Sickle-Santanello BJ. The likelihood of additional nodal disease following a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer patients: validation of a nomogram. Am J Surg. 2006;192:484–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Alran S, De Rycke Y, Fourchotte V, Charitansky H, Laki F, Falcou MC, 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 

  16. Kohrt HE, Olshen RA, Bermas HR, Goodson WH, Wood DJ, Henry S, et al. New models and online calculator for predicting non-sentinel lymph node status in sentinel lymph node positive breast cancer patients. BMC Cancer. 2008;8:66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. van la Parra RF, Ernst MF, Bevilacqua JL, Mol SJ, Van Zee KJ, Broekman JM, et al. Validation of a nomogram to predict the risk of nonsentinel lymph node metastases in breast cancer patients with a positive sentinel node biopsy: validation of the MSKCC breast nomogram. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1128–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schisterman EF, Faraggi D, Reiser B, Trevisan M. Statistical inference for the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in the presence of random measurement error. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;154:174–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Fischer JE, Bachmann LM, Jaeschke R. A readers’ guide to the interpretation of diagnostic test properties: clinical example of sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29:1043–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Olson JA Jr, McCall LM, Beitsch P, Whitworth PW, Reintgen DS, Blumencranz PW, et al. Impact of immediate versus delayed axillary node dissection on surgical outcomes in breast cancer patients with positive sentinel nodes: results from American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Trials Z0010 and Z0011. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3530–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kamath VJ, Giuliano R, Dauway EL, Cantor A, Berman C, Ku NN, et al. 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. 2001;136:688–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, Parise CA, Caggiano V. Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-negative invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: a population-based study from the California cancer Registry. Cancer. 2007;109:1721–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Poirier E, Sideris L, Dube P, Drolet P, Meterissian SH. Analysis of clinical applicability of the breast cancer nomogram for positive sentinel lymph node: the Canadian experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:2562–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

Tatsunari Sasada and his co-authors have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Frontier Medical Science, Department of Surgery, Programs for Biomedical Research, Graduate School of Biomedical Science, Hiroshima University, 1-2-3 Kasumi, Minami-ku, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan

    Tatsunari Sasada & Hideki Ohdan

  2. Department of Breast Surgery, Hiroshima University Hospital, Hiroshima, Japan

    Tatsunari Sasada, Shigeru Murakami, Tsuyoshi Kataoka, Masahiro Ohara, Shinji Ozaki & Morihito Okada

Authors
  1. Tatsunari Sasada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shigeru Murakami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tsuyoshi Kataoka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Masahiro Ohara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shinji Ozaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Morihito Okada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hideki Ohdan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tatsunari Sasada.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sasada, T., Murakami, S., Kataoka, T. et al. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Nomogram to predict the risk of non-sentinel lymph node metastasis in Japanese breast cancer patients. Surg Today 42, 245–249 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-011-0088-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-011-0088-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation