Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

How Often Does Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Avoid Axillary Dissection in Patients With Histologically Confirmed Nodal Metastases? Results of a Prospective Study

Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In breast cancer patients with nodal metastases at presentation, false-negative rates lower than 10 % have been demonstrated for sentinel node biopsy (SLNB) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) when three or more negative sentinel nodes (SLNs) are retrieved. However, the frequency with which axillary dissection (ALND) can be avoided is uncertain.

Methods

Among 534 prospectively identified consecutive patients with clinical stages 2 and 3 cancer receiving NAC from November 2013 to November 2015, all biopsy-proven node-positive (N+) cases were identified. Patients clinically node-negative after NAC were eligible for SLNB. The indications for ALND were failed mapping, fewer than three SLNs retrieved, and positive SLNs.

Results

Of 288 N+ patients, 195 completed surgery, with 132 (68 %) of these patients eligible for SLNB. The median age was 50 years. Of these patients, 73 (55 %) were estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), 21 (16 %) were ER− and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-positive (HER2+), and 38 (29 %) were triple-negative. In four cases, SLNB was deferred intraoperatively. Among 128 SLNB attempts, three or more SLNs were retrieved in 110 cases (86 %), one or two SLNs were retrieved in 15 cases (12 %), and failed mapping occurred in three cases (2 %). In 66 cases, ALND was indicated: 54 (82 %) for positive SLNs, 9 (14 %) for fewer than three negative SLNs, and 3 (4 %) for failed mapping. Persistent disease was found in 17 % of the patients with fewer than three negative SLNs retrieved. Of the 128 SLNB cases, 62 (48 %) had SLNB alone with three or more SLNs retrieved. Among 195 N+ patients who completed surgery, nodal pathologic complete response (pCR) was achieved for 49 %, with rates ranging from 21 % for ER+/HER2− to 97 % for ER−/HER2+ cases, and was significantly more common than breast pCR in ER+/HER2− and triple-negative cases.

Conclusions

Nearly 70 % of the N+ patients were eligible for SLNB after NAC. For 48 %, ALND was avoided, supporting the role of NAC in reducing the need for ALND among patients presenting with nodal metastases.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. King TA, Morrow M. Surgical issues in patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015;12:335–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Xing Y, Foy M, Cox DD, Kuerer HM, Hunt KK, Cormier JN. Meta-analysis of sentinel lymph node biopsy after preoperative chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2006;93:539–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kelly AM, Dwamena B, Cronin P, Carlos RC. Breast cancer sentinel node identification and classification after neoadjuvant chemotherapy-systematic review and meta analysis. Acad Radiol. 2009;16:551–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kuehn T, Bauerfeind I, Fehm T, Fleige B, Hausschild M, Helms G, et al. Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy in patients with breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (SENTINA): a prospective, multicentre cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:609–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Boileau JF, Poirier B, Basik M, Holloway CMB, Gaboury L, Sideris L, et al. Sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer: The SN FNAC study. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:258–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA, Ahrendt GM, Wilke LG, Taback B, et al. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer: the ACOSOG Z1071 (alliance) clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310:1455–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Goyal A, Newcombe RG, Chhabra A, Mansel RE. Factors affecting failed localisation and false-negative rates of sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer: results of the ALMANAC validation phase. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;99:203–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. McMasters KM, Tuttle TM, Carlson DJ, Brown CM, Noyes RD, Glaser RL, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer: a suitable alternative to routine axillary dissection in multi-institutional practice when optimal technique is used. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:2560–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, Brown AM, Harlow SP, Ashikaga T, et al. Technical outcomes of sentinel-lymph-node resection and conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer: results from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase III trial. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:881–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tafra L, Lannin DR, Swanson MS, Van Eyk JJ, Verbanac KM, Chua AN, et al. Multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer using both technetium sulfur colloid and isosulfan blue dye. Ann Surg. 2001;233:51–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Donker M, van Tienhoven G, Straver ME, Meijnen P, van de Velde CJH, Mansel RE, et al. Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer (EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 noninferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:1303–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Mansel RE, Fallowfield L, Kissin M, Goyal A, Newcombe RG, Dixon JM, et al. Randomized multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy versus standard axillary treatment in operable breast cancer: the ALMANAC trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:599–609.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Connor CS, Kimler BF, Mammen JMV, McGinness MK, Wagner JL, Alsop SM, et al. Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on axillary nodal involvement in patients with clinically node-negative triple-negative breast cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2015;111:198–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. McVeigh TP, Al-Azawi D, Kearney DE, Malone C, Sweeney KJ, Barry K, et al. Assessing the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on the management of the breast and axilla in breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2014;14:20–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dominici LS, Mittendorf EA, Kuerer HM. Cytologically proven axillary lymph node metastases are eradicated in patients receiving preoperative chemotherapy with concurrent trastuzumab for HER2-positive breast cancer. Cancer. 2011;117:1783–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Park S, Park JM, Cho JH, Park HS, Kim SI, Park BW. Sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with cytologically proven node-positive breast cancer at diagnosis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:2858–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Golshan M, Cirrincione CT, Carey LA, Sikov WM, Berry DA, Burstein HJ, et al. Impact of neoadjuvant therapy on breast conservation rates in triple-negative and HER2-positive breast cancer: combined results of CALGB 40603 and 40601 (Alliance). ASCO Meeting Abstr. 2015;33:1007.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ahmed M, Purushotham AD, Horgan K, Klaase JM, Douek M. Meta-analysis of superficial versus deep injection of radioactive tracer and blue dye for lymphatic mapping and detection of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2015;102:169–81; e84.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Caruso G, Cipolla C, Costa R, Morabito A, Latteri S, Fricano S, et al. Lymphoscintigraphy with peritumoral injection versus lymphoscintigraphy with subdermal periareolar injection of technetium-labeled human albumin to identify sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer patients. Acta Radiol. 2014;55:39–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pouw JJ, Ahmed M, Anninga B, Schuurman K, Pinder SE, Van Hemelrijck M, et al. Comparison of three magnetic nanoparticle tracers for sentinel lymph node biopsy in an in vivo porcine model. Int J Nanomedicine. 2015;10:1235–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Schwartz GF, Tannebaum JE, Jernigan AM, Palazzo JP. Axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for carcinoma of the breast. Cancer. 2010;116:1243–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA, Ahrendt GM, Wilke LG, Taback B, et al. Factors affecting sentinel lymph node identification rate after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer patients enrolled in ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance). Ann Surg. 2015;261:547–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Caudle AS, Yang WT, Krishnamurthy S, Mittendorf EA, Black DM, Gilcrease MZ, et al. Improved axillary evaluation following neoadjuvant therapy for patients with node-positive breast cancer using selective evaluation of clipped nodes: implementation of targeted axillary dissection. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34: 1072–1078.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Barrio A, Mamtani A, Stempel M, Eaton A, Edelweiss M, Morrow M. How often is treatment effect identified in axillary nodes with a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy? Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;20(Suppl 1):S16.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hennessy BT, Hortobagyi GN, Rouzier R, Kuerer H, Sneige N, Buzdar AU, et al. Outcome after pathologic complete eradication of cytologically proven breast cancer axillary node metastases following primary chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:9304–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Boughey JC, McCall LM, Ballman KV, Mittendorf EA, Ahrendt GM, Wilke LG, et al. Tumor biology correlates with rates of breastconserving surgery and pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer findings from the ACOSOG Z1071 (alliance) prospective multicenter clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2014;260:608–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU, Costa SD, Eidtmann H, Fasching PA, et al. Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1796–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, Mehta K, Costantino JP, Wolmark N, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384:164–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mamounas EP, Anderson SJ, Dignam JJ, Bear HD, Julian TB, Geyer CE Jr, et al. Predictors of locoregional recurrence after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results from combined analysis of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3960–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Mieog JS, van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2007;94:1189–200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was funded in part by NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant No. P30 CA008748.

Disclosure

Anita Mamtani, Andrea V. Barrio, Tari A. King, Kimberly J. Van Zee, George Plitas, Melissa Pilewskie, Mahmoud El-Tamer, Mary L. Gemignani, Alexandra S. Heerdt, Lisa M. Sclafani, Virgilio Sacchini, Hiram S. Cody III, Sujata Patil, and Monica Morrow have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monica Morrow MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mamtani, A., Barrio, A.V., King, T.A. et al. How Often Does Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Avoid Axillary Dissection in Patients With Histologically Confirmed Nodal Metastases? Results of a Prospective Study. Ann Surg Oncol 23, 3467–3474 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5246-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5246-8

Keywords

Navigation