Nodal recurrence in patients with node-positive breast cancer treated with sentinel node biopsy alone after neoadjuvant chemotherapy - A rare event Journal Article


Authors: Barrio, A. V.; Montagna, G.; Mamtani, A.; Sevilimedu, V.; Edelweiss, M.; Capko, D.; Cody, H. S. 3rd; El-Tamer, M.; Gemignani, M. L.; Heerdt, A.; Kirstein, L.; Moo, T. A.; Pilewskie, M.; Plitas, G.; Sacchini, V.; Sclafani, L.; Tadros, A.; Van Zee, K. J.; Morrow, M.
Article Title: Nodal recurrence in patients with node-positive breast cancer treated with sentinel node biopsy alone after neoadjuvant chemotherapy - A rare event
Abstract: IMPORTANCE Prospective trials have demonstrated sentinel lymph node (SLN) false-negative rates of less than 10% when 3 or more SLNs are retrieved in patients with clinically node-positive breast cancer rendered clinically node-negative with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). However, rates of nodal recurrence in such patients treated with SLN biopsy (SLNB) alone are unknown because axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) was performed in all patients, limiting adoption of this approach. OBJECTIVE To evaluate nodal recurrence rates in a consecutive cohort of patients with clinically node-positive (cN1) breast cancer receiving NAC, followed by a negative SLNB using a standardized technique, and no further axillary surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS From November 2013 to February 2019, a cohort of consecutively identified patients with cT1 to cT3 biopsy-proven N1 breast cancer rendered cN0 by NAC underwent SLNB with dual tracer mapping and omission of ALND if 3 or more SLNs were identified and all were pathologically negative. Metastatic nodes were not routinely clipped, and localization of clipped nodes was not performed. The study was performed in a single tertiary cancer center. INTERVENTION Omission of ALND in patients with cN1 breast cancer after NAC if 3 or more SLNs were pathologically negative. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES The primary outcome was the rate of nodal recurrence among patients with cN1 breast cancer treated with SLNB alone after NAC. RESULTS Of 610 patients with cN1 breast cancer treated with NAC (median [IQR] age, 49 [40-58] years), 555 (91%) converted to cN0 and underwent SLNB; 234 (42%) had 3 or more negative SLNs and had SLNB alone. Median age was 49 years. Median tumor size was 3 cm; 144 (62%) were ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-positive, and 43 (18%) were triple negative. Most (212 [91%]) received doxorubicin-based NAC, 205 (88%) received adjuvant radiotherapy (RT), and 164 (70%) also received nodal RT. At a median follow-up of 40 months, there was 1 axillary nodal recurrence synchronous with local recurrence in a patient who refused RT. Among patients who received RT (n = 205), there were no nodal recurrences. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This cohort study found that in patients with cN1 disease rendered cN0 with NAC, with 3 or more negative SLNs with SLNB alone, nodal recurrence rates were low, without routine nodal clipping. These findings potentially support omitting ALND in such patients. This cohort study examines nodal recurrence rates in patients with clinically node-positive cancer treated with sentinel lymph node biopsy alone after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Question What is the nodal recurrence rate in patients with clinically node-positive (cN1) breast cancer treated with sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) alone after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC)? Findings In this cohort study of 610 patients with cN1 breast cancer, among 234 consecutive patients whose cancer was rendered cN0 with NAC treated with SLNB alone with 3 or more negative SLNs retrieved, rates of axillary failure at a median follow-up of 40 months were low (0.4%), without routine nodal clipping. Meaning These data support potential omission of axillary lymph node dissection in patients with cN1 breast cancer who achieve nodal pathologic complete response with NAC and are treated with SLNB alone.
Journal Title: JAMA Oncology
Volume: 7
Issue: 12
ISSN: 2374-2437
Publisher: American Medical Association  
Date Published: 2021-12-01
Start Page: 1851
End Page: 1855
Language: English
ACCESSION: WOS:000704807100002
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.4394
PROVIDER: wos
PMCID: PMC8498932
PUBMED: 34617979
Notes: Article -- Source: Wos
Altmetric
Citation Impact
BMJ Impact Analytics
MSK Authors
  1. Andrea Veronica Barrio
    134 Barrio
  2. Monica Morrow
    772 Morrow
  3. Deborah Capko
    17 Capko
  4. Kimberly J Van Zee
    293 Van Zee
  5. Hiram S Cody III
    242 Cody
  6. Mary L Gemignani
    218 Gemignani
  7. Virgilio Sacchini
    146 Sacchini
  8. Alexandra S Heerdt
    110 Heerdt
  9. George Plitas
    107 Plitas
  10. Mahmoud B. El-Tamer
    105 El-Tamer
  11. Marcia Edelweiss
    104 Edelweiss
  12. Melissa Louise Pilewskie
    112 Pilewskie
  13. Tracy-Ann Moo
    96 Moo
  14. Anita   Mamtani
    65 Mamtani
  15. Audree Blythe Tadros
    116 Tadros
  16. Giacomo Montagna
    100 Montagna