Abstract
AIM:
The study aimed to identify factors that influence the positivity of axillary lymph nodes in patients with early breast cancer and clinically negative axillary lymph nodes, who were subjected for modified radical mastectomy and axillary lymphadenectomy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
This study included 81 surgically treated, early breast cancer patients during the period from 08-2015 to 05-2017. All the cases have been analysed by standard histological analysis including macroscopic and microscopic examination by routine H&E staining. For determination of molecular receptors, immunostaining by PT LINK immunoperoxidase has been done for HER2neu, ER, PR, p53 and Ki67.
RESULTS:
Patients age ranged between 31-73 years, an average of 56.86 years. The mean size of a primary tumour in the surgically treated patient was 20.33 ± 6.0 mm. Axillary dissection revealed from 5 to 32 lymph nodes, with an average of 14. Metastases have been found in 1 to 7 lymph nodes, with an average 0.7. Only 26 (32.1%) of the patients showed metastases in the axillary lymph nodes. The univariant regression analysis showed that the size of a tumour and presence of HER2neu receptors on cancer cells influence the positivity of the axillary lymph nodes. The presence of the estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors have no influence on the positivity for metastatic deposits of lymph nodes. Multivariant model and logistic regression analysis as significant independent factors or predictors of positivity of the axillary lymph nodes are influenced by the tumour size only.
CONCLUSION:
Our study showed that the metastatic involvement of the axillary lymph nodes is mainly influenced by the size of a tumour and presence of HER2neu receptors in the univariant analysis. This point to the important influence of positivity of the axillary lymph nodes but, in multi-variant regressive analysis the lymph node status correlates with the tumour size only.
Keywords: early breast cancer, factors that predict axillary status, tumour size, lymphovascular invasion, Ki67
Introduction
Axillary status (involvement of lymph nodes in axilla with a metastatic tumour from primary breast cancer) together with the size of a primary breast tumour is the main factors that define the stage of breast cancer but also predict prognosis of the breast cancer [1].
Introducing procedure – detection of sentinel node and biopsy, is a minimally invasive procedure that determines first drainage lymph node in the axillar pit [2]. Examination of this lymph node at the same surgical intervention gives us information about the status of this lymph node but also gives us information about other lymph nodes in the axilla. We suppose that if the sentinel lymph node is negative (not involved with metastases), we suppose that all other lymph nodes in the axillary pit is negative and is not necessary to do lymphadenectomy. Knowing the status of the axillary lymph nodes is very important, for the planning further therapeutic procedure.
The study aimed to analyse which factors that influence the positivity of axillary lymph nodes, with a point to tumour size, expression of estrogen, progesterone and HER2neu receptors on tumour cell surface, values of Ki67, in patients with early breast cancer and clinically negative axillary lymph nodes.
Material and Methods
In the prospective study were analyse 81 surgically treated patients with early breast cancer during 08.2015-05.2017 year, with clinically negative axilla, at which were done a radical surgical intervention of the breast with complete axillary lymphadenectomy. All the cases have been analyzed by standard histological analysis including macroscopic and microscopic analysis of standard H&E staining. For determining of molecular receptors immunostaining by PT, LINK immunoperoxidase has been done for HER2neu, ER, PR, p53 and Ki67.
Statistical analysis was done with statistical program Statistica 7.
Results
Patients age ranged between 31-73 years, an average of 56.86. The stages of the primary breast cancer in our patients are given in Table 1. The biggest frequency was found for stage IIA (41.97%), stage IA (29.63%), and for stage IIB (23.46%). We found stage IIA in 2.47%, the stage 0 in1.23%, and stage IB in 2.23%. We did not find any cases in stages IIIB and IIIC.
Table 1.
Stages of the primary breast cancer in our patients
Variable | Total (No = 81) (100.00%) |
---|---|
Stage | |
0 | 1 (1.23%) |
IA | 24 (29.63%) |
IB | 1 (1.23%) |
IIA | 34 (41.97%) |
IIB | 19 (23.46%) |
IIIA | 2 (2.47%) |
IIIB | 0 (0.00%) |
IIIC | 0 (0.00%) |
Characteristics of the primary breast cancer in our patients are shown in Table 2. There were not found statically significant differences between axilla positive and axilla negative patients for tumour size, location, and histology. Nuclear grade was significantly diferent in the patients with axillary negative patients, where patients with G1 were (10.91%) and with G3 were (1.82%) in comparison with the positive axillary patients, where patients with G1 were (0%), and with G3 were (11.54%), (p < 0.044). The mean size of a primary tumour in the surgically treated patient was 20.33 + 6.0 mm. On dissection from the axillary pits, there were taken out 5 to 32 lymph nodes, an average of 14.0. Metastases have been found in 1 to 7 lymph nodes, an average 0.7. In 32.1% of the patients have been found metastases in the axillary lymph nodes (Table 2).
Table 2.
Characteristics of the primary breast cancer in our patients
Variable | Axilla positive (N = 26) (32.1%) | Axilla negative (N = 55) (67.9%) | Total (N = 81) (100.00%) | P |
---|---|---|---|---|
Tumor size | ||||
Tis | 0 (0.00%) | 1 (1.82%) | 1 (8.40%) | 0.540 |
T1a | 0 (0.00%) | 3 (5.45%) | 3 (3.70%) | |
T1b | 0 (0.00%) | 8 (14.54%) | 8 (9.87%) | |
T1c | 5 (19.23%) | 16 (29.09%) | 21 (25.92%) | |
T2 | 21 (80.76%) | 27 (49.09%) | 48 (59.25%) | |
Location | ||||
Central | 5 (19.23%) | 10 (18.18%) | 15 (18.52%) | 0.991 |
Inner | 4 (15.38%) | 9 (16.36%) | 13 (16.05%) | |
Lateral | 17 (65.38%) | 36 (65.45%) | 53 (65.43%) | |
Histology | ||||
Ductal | 21 (80.77%) | 46 (83.64%) | 67 (82.72%) | 0.807 |
Lobular | 3 (11.54%) | 4 (7.28%) | 7 (8.64%) | |
Other | 2 (7.69%) | 5 (9.09%) | 7 (8.64%) | |
Nuclear grade | ||||
1 | 0 (0.00%) | 6 (10.91%) | 6 (7.41%) | 0.044* |
2 | 23 (88.46%) | 48 (87.27%) | 71 (87.65%) | |
3 | 3 (11.54%) | 1 (1.82%) | 4 (4.94%) |
Statistically significant differences; N = number.
The univariant regression analysis showed that the size of a tumour (p = 0.022) and presence of HER2neu receptors on cancer cell (p = 0.037) influence on the positivity of the axillary lymph nodes.
Characteristics of the receptors in the patients with primary breast cancer are shown in Table 3. The presence of the estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors showed that they do not have influence on the positivity for metastatic deposits in axillary lymph nodes, except the frequency of LVI positive patients (57.69%) in positive axillary patients in comparison with axillary negative patients (9.09%), (p < 0.001) (Table 3).
Table 3.
Characteristics of receptors in the primary breast cancer in our patients
Variable | Axilla positive (N=26) (32.1%) | Axilla negative (N = 55) (67.9%) | Total (N = 81) (100.00%) | P |
---|---|---|---|---|
Estrogen receptors | ||||
Positive | 22 (84.61%) | 45 (87.82%) | 67 (82.71%) | 0.755 |
Negative | 4 (15.38%) | 10 (18.18%) | 14 (17.28%) | |
Progesterone receptors | ||||
Positive | 18 (69.23%) | 41 (74.54%) | 59 (72.84%) | 0.615 |
Negative | 8 (30.77%) | 14 (25.45%) | 22 (27.16%) | |
Her 2neu receptors | ||||
Positive | 13 (50.00%) | 21 (38.18%) | 34 (41.97%) | 0.314 |
Negative | 13 (50.00%) | 34 (61.82%) | 47 (58.02%) | |
P53 | ||||
Positive | 11 (42.31%) | 26 (47.27%) | 37 (45.68%) | 0.675 |
Negative | 15 (57.69%) | 29 (52.73%) | 44 (54.32%) | |
LVI | ||||
Positive | 15 (57.69%) | 5 (9.09%) | 20 (24.69%) | < 0.001* |
Negative | 11 (42.31%) | 50 (90.91%) | 61 (75.31%) | |
Ki67 | ||||
< 20 | 11 (42.31%) | 24 (43.64%) | 35 (43.21%) | 0.910 |
> 20 | 15 (57.69%) | 31 (56.36%) | 46 (56.79%) |
Statistically significant differences; N = number.
Multivariant model and logistic regression analysis as significant independent factors or predictors of positivity of the axillary lymph nodes are influenced by the tumour size only (p = 0.014).
Discussion
Axilar lymphadenectomy gives us parameters for the axillar status, but at the same time is the therapeutic procedure. On the other hand, axillar lymphadenectomy was followed with many unlike features and complications like as sensation in the arm, reduction of the arm mobility and lymphedema [3]. Use the thesis of the Fisher and Veronesi that breast cancer is the systemic disease at the moment of the diagnosis it, and needs to be treated as a systemic disease with drugs that work in the whole body (chemotherapeutic, antihormonal therapy, immunotherapy) [4, 5]. So axillar status is a first diagnostic tool, and in many instances especially if it is not involved with metastatic disease, which is in 40-70% not involved, it is not necessary to done axillar lymphadenectomy [6].
Prediction of axillary status can be used to predict whole axillar status, predict sentinel node and predict nonsentinel node status if sentinel node is positive [7-10].
Many authors use many standard methods for prediction of the axillar status, as clinical examination, mammography, ultrasonography, but also introduce new methods like ultrasound guide biopsy, CT, NMRI, Pet-CT, SPET-CT, contrast examinations, but in any case they see enlarged lymph nodes, but is impossible to guarantee that all this are metastatic changed (low sensitivity) [11-14]. Use of these methods is possible only to lower rate of falls negative results [15].
In last period we done lot investigations how different factors influent to positivity of axillary lymph nodes, on different groups of patients (patients with early breast cancer, patients with early breast cancer and clinically negative axilla, all surgically treated patients with breast cancer, patients with advanced breast cancer) and in last period we examined how size of tumor, persistence of estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors, HER 2 new receptors and Ki67 values influent to chance of dispersion of the disease in the axilla. Interesting is the fact that in the same institution in the same period, but on different groups of patients according to the stage of the disease were analysed the factors that can predict positivity of axilla. We find that in the whole group where patients with early but also with advantage stage were an as important factor for appearing metastases in axilla were the persistence of lymphovascular invasion and bigger values of Ki67 that were not important in groups with only early breast cancer. The possibility is that with the advantage of the stage are appearing aggressive factors in a tumour that after that influence on spreading the tumour cells in lymph nodes in axilla [16, 17].
Introduction of SLND detection, especially if are used both type of detection, as vital blue due (methylene blue) and radioisotope Technician with colloid particles (radiocoloid) at the end of the last century, give us very successful tool for detection SLND, which histological examination, give us successfully status of SLND but also status of whole axilla [16, 18-22].
In literature, there are many investigations for determination of factors that can predict positivity of axilla, SLND and NSLND if SLND is positive. Factors can be divided into few categories:
-Epidemiological (age, race, side, localisation);
-Clinical (palpability of a tumour, palpability of axillary lymph nodes, location);
-Pathological (histology of a tumour, differentiation of cells, neovascularisation of a tumour, vascular and lymphovascular invasion, extensive intraductal component, the persistence of receptors on the surface of the cells- estrogen, progesterone, Her-2 new, the persistence of p53 proteins, the persistence of factor of proliferation Ki67. Knowing these parameters is possible to determine subtype of breast cancer.);
-Biochemical (CEA, CA 15-3);
Many of the factors that were examined as a predictor of axillary status, is very well known, known is a biological way of action, and is very well known how is their action to the biology of a tumour, and how they work to spread the disease in the body. So estrogen receptors are on the surface of the cell. The connection of the estrogen and estrogen receptors activate many processes in the cell and favourite raising and dividing the cells, so favourite estrogen rising of a tumour. Giving the drugs that blockade estrogen receptors or drugs that blockade synthesis of the estrogen will stop rising of a tumour. The same situation is with persistence of HER-2 neu receptors. HER2 is a membrane tyrosine kinase and oncogene that is overexpressed and gene amplified in about 20% of breast cancers. When activated it provides the cell with potent proliferative and anti-apoptosis signals, and it is the major driver of tumour development and progression of breast cancer. Over expression will activate many pathways in the cell, so the cells will raise and divide uncontrolled, so a tumour will raise and can’t be under control. Giving the target drug – monoclonal antibody-Trastuzumab (Herceptin), will blockade this receptor, and the tumour will be under control. More, giving chemotherapeutics which interact with all cells which is divide fast; a tumour will be under control. Ki67 is a factor that shows the proliferative activity of the tumour cells. Ki67 is in correlation with S phase of cells and mitotic activity. Normal breast cell has a proliferative activity of 3% (3% of cells are in dividing stage). The Bigger activity of 20 % shows an aggressive tumour with bad prognosis and shorter survival [60-62].
Many investigators analyse many factors, how to allow or in combination can predict the status of the axillar lymph nodes, the status of SLND and in recent time status of NSLND. Postaci, Jiao, Jaime Jans, Ugras, Gangi, Pijnappel, Sawaki, Brenin, Chung, Chadha, Tan, Gajdos, Qiu, Ashturkar, Wu, Tseng, Ko, Li, Ngo, Yoo, Danko, Cabioglu, Capdet, Susini, Wasuthit are part of authors whose in last decade investigate which factors influent to positivity of axillar lymph node or positivity of sentinel node. They investigate all factors that can be investigated like epidemiological, clinical, histopathological, genetic, molecular. Mainly from all these studies dominantly main factors that can influent to positivity of axillar nodes are the size of a tumour, location, histology, grade of differentiation, lymphovascular invasion. But also in many of the investigations, other factors that can influence to positivity of axillar lymph nodes are referred: age, the persistence of estrogen, progesterone and Her two new receptors on the surface of the cells, a subtype of breast cancer, values of Ki67, multifocality, EIC and other. In only a few studies were referred VEGFC, MIB1, CEA, CA 15-3, CCR7, CXCR4 and others [23-46].
It is very interesting how some factors in some studies are important factors that predict axillar involvement with metastases, but in other studies, these factors are not important, and no influence to axillar involvement. For example in studies of Jiao, Pijnappel, Sawaki, Gangi, Qiu one of the essential factors that predict axillar involvement is the persistence of hormonal receptors and HER 2 receptors on the tumour cell, much more is well defined that Luminal and Her enriched tumours lymph nodes are more often involved with metastatic disease. On the other hand, triple negative tumours rarely have involvement of lymph nodes with metastatic disease, never less than this type shows early distant metastasis and worse prognosis. But in many others, studies show that persistence of hormone receptors, HER 2 receptors on the surface of tumour cells, does not influence involvement of axillary lymph nodes with metastases. So it is interesting why the same factor in one study is the main factor, and in other study is not important [24, 27-29, 35].
In our study, the univariant regression analysis showed that the size of a tumour and presence of HER2 neu receptors on the surface of cancer cell influence on the positivity of the axillary lymph nodes. The presence of the estrogen receptors and progesterone receptors showed that they do not have an influence on the positivity for metastatic deposits in axillary lymph nodes. Multivariant model and logistic regression analysis as significant independent factors or predictors of positivity of the axillary lymph nodes are influenced by the tumour size only. It is necessary as a minimum to done detection and biopsy of the sentinel node, which is further histology examined. With detecting status of the sentinel node, we can safely predict the status of other lymph nodes in the axilla.
In conclusion, our study showed that the involving of the axillary lymph nodes is mainly influenced by the size of a tumour and presence of HER2neu receptors in the univariant analysis points the important influence of positivity in the axillary lymph nodes but the only size of a tumour in the multivariate regressive analysis.
Footnotes
Funding: This research did not receive any financial support.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
References
- 1.Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE. Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer. 1989;63:181–187. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19890101)63:1<181::aid-cncr2820630129>3.0.co;2-h. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19890101)63:1<181::AID-CNCR2820630129>3.0.CO;2-H. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Giuliano AE, Kirgan DM, Guenther JM, Morton DL. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymphadenectomy for breast cancer. Annals of Surgery. 1994;220(3):391–401. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199409000-00015. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199409000-00015 PMid:8092905 PMCid:PMC1234400. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Maunsell E, Brisson J, &Deshenes L. Arm problems and psychological distress after surgery for breast cancer. Canadian Journal of Surgery. 1993;36:315–320. PMid:8370012. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Fisher B, Jeong JH, Anderson S, et al. Twenty-five-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing radical mastectomy, total mastectomy and total mastectomy followed by irradiation. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(8):567–575. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa020128. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa020128 PMid:12192016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Veronesi U, Saccozzi R, Del Vecchio M, et al. Comparing radical mastectomy with quadrantectomy, axillary dissection, and radiotherapy in patients with small cancer of the breast. N Engl J Med. 1981;305(1):6–11. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198107023050102. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198107023050102 PMid:7015141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Cady B, Stone MD, Schuler JG, Thakur R, Wanner MA, Lavin PT. The new era in breast cancer:invasion, size, and nodal involvement dramatically decreasing as a result of mammographic screening. Archives of Surgery. 1996;131:301–308. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.1996.01430150079015. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.1996.01430150079015 PMid:8611096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Barth A, Craig PH, Silverstein MJ. Predictors of axillary lymph node metastases in patients with T1 breast carcinoma. Cancer. 1997;79:1918–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19970515)79:10<1918::AID-CNCR12>3.0.CO;2-Y. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Tan YY, Wu CT, Fan YG, et al. Primary tumor characteristics predict sentinel lymph node macrometastasis in breast cancer. Breast J. 2005;11:338–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1075-122X.2005.00043.x. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1075-122X.2005.00043.x PMid:16174155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Ravdin PM, De Laurentiis M, Vendely T, Clark GM. Prediction of axillary lymph node status in breast cancer patients by use of prognostic indicators. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994;86:1771–75. doi: 10.1093/jnci/86.23.1771. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/86.23.1771 PMid:7966415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Hwang RF, Krishnamurthy S, Hunt KK, et al. Clinicopathologic factors predicting involvement of nonsentinel axillary nodes in women with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10:248–54. doi: 10.1245/aso.2003.05.020. https://doi.org/10.1245/ASO.2003.05.020 PMid:12679309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Patani NR, Dwek MV, Douek M. Predictors of axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer:a systematic review. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33(4):409–19. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2006.09.003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2006.09.003 PMid:17125963. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Ahmed M, Purushotham AD, Douek M. Novel techniques for sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer:a systematic review. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(8):e351–62. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70590-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70590-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Byon W, Kim E, Kwon J, Song BJ, Park C. FDG-PET, MRI and USG in the assesment of axillary lymph node metastases in breast cancer. The Breast. 2015;24:S1–S67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9776(15)70165-7. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Hwang SO, Lee SW, Kim HJ, Kim WW, Park HY, Jung JH. The Comparative Study of Ultrasonography, Contrast-Enhanced MRI, and (18)F-FDG PET/CT for Detecting Axillary Lymph Node Metastasis in T1 Breast Cancer. J Breast Cancer. 2013;16(3):315–21. doi: 10.4048/jbc.2013.16.3.315. https://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2013.16.3.315 PMid:24155761 PMCid:PMC3800728. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Hyun SJ, Kim EK, Yoon JH, Moon HJ, Kim MJ. Adding MRI to ultrasound and ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration reduces the false-negative rate of axillary lymph node metastasis diagnosis in breast cancer patients. Clin Radiol. 2015;70(7):716–22. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2015.03.004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2015.03.004 PMid:25917544. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Kondov B, Milenkovikj Z, Spirovski Z, Popgjorceva D, Stojanovski S, Petrusevska G, Ivkovski Lj, Jovanovski-Srceva M, Kondov G. Application of “sentinel lymph node detection” in axilla in patients surgically treated for early breast cancer. Physioacta. 2016;10(2):53–62. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kondov B, Kondov G, Spirovski Z, Milenkovikj Z, Colanceski R, Petrusevska G, Pesevska M. Prognostic factors on the positivity for metastases of the axillary lymph nodes from primary breast cancer-Pril. 2017;37:1–10. doi: 10.1515/prilozi-2017-0011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Giuliano AE, Han SH. Local and regional control in breast cancer:role of sentinel node biopsy. Adv Surg. 2011;45:101–16. doi: 10.1016/j.yasu.2011.03.015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yasu.2011.03.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Mamounas ET. Optimal Management of the Axilla:A Look at the Evidence. Adv Surg. 2016;50(1):29–40. doi: 10.1016/j.yasu.2016.03.003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yasu.2016.03.003 PMid:27520860. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Moncayo VM, Aarsvold JN, Grant SF, Bartley SC, Alazraki NP. Status of sentinel lymph node for breast cancer. Semin Nucl Med. 2013;43(4):281–93. doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2013.02.004. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2013.02.004 PMid:23725990. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Gherghe M, Bordea C, Blidaru A. Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) vs. axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in the current surgical treatment of early stage breast cancer. J Med Life. 2015;8(2):176–80. PMid:25866575 PMCid:PMC4392088. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Zervoudis S, Iatrakis G, Tomara E, Bothou A, Papadopoulos G, Tsakiris G. Main controversies in breast cancer. World J Clin Oncol. 2014;5(3):359–73. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v5.i3.359. https://doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v5.i3.359 PMid:25114851 PMCid:PMC4127607. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Postacı H, Zengel B, Yararbaş U, Uslu A, Eliyatkın N, Akpınar G, Cengiz F, Durusoy R. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer:predictors of axillary and non-sentinel lymph node involvement. Balkan Med J. 2013;30(4):415–21. doi: 10.5152/balkanmedj.2013.9591. https://doi.org/10.5152/balkanmedj.2013.9591 PMid:25207151 PMCid:PMC4115951. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Jiao D, Qiao J, Lu Z, Li L, Zhang H, Liu H, Cui S, Liu Z. [Analysis of predictive factors affecting sentinel lymph node status in early breast cancer patients] Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2014;36(3):198–201. PMid:24785280. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Jans BJ, Escudero MN, Pulgar BD, Acevedo CF, Sánchez RC, Camus AM. Clinicopathologic subtypes and compromise of lymph nodes in patients with breast cancer. eCancer Medical Science. 2014;8 doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2014.448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Ugras S, Stempel M, Patil S, Morrow M. Estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status predict lymphovascular invasion and lymph node involvement. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(12):3780–6. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-3851-y. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3851-y PMid:24952028 PMCid:PMC4362539. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Gangi A, Mirocha J, Leong T, Giuliano AE. Triple-negative breast cancer is not associated with increased likelihood of nodal metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(13):4098–103. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-3989-7. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3989-7 PMid:25155393. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Pijnappel EN, Bhoo-Pathy N, Suniza J, See MH, Tan GH, Yip CH, Hartman M, Taib NA, Verkooijen HM. Prediction of lymph node involvement in patients with breast tumors measuring 3-5 cm in a middle-income setting:the role of Cancer Math. World J Surg. 2014;38(12):3133–7. doi: 10.1007/s00268-014-2752-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2752-3 PMid:25167896. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Sawaki M, Idota A, Ichikawa M, Gondo N, Horio A, Kondo N, Hattori M, Fujita T, Yatabe Y, Iwata H. Impact of intrinsic subtype on predicting axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer. Oncol Lett. 2014;8(4):1707–1712. doi: 10.3892/ol.2014.2333. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2014.2333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Brenin DR, Manasseh DM, El-Tamer M, Troxel A, Schnabel F, Ditkoff BA, Kinne D. Factors correlating with lymph node metastases in patients with T1 breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001;8(5):432–7. doi: 10.1007/s10434-001-0432-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10434-001-0432-7 PMid:11407518. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Chung MJ, Lee JH, Kim SH, Suh YJ, Choi HJ. Simple Prediction Model of Axillary Lymph Node Positivity After Analyzing Molecular and Clinical Factors in Early Breast Cancer. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95(20):e3689. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003689. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000003689 PMid:27196477 PMCid:PMC4902419. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Chadha M, Chabon AB, Friedmann P, Vikram B. Predictors of axillary lymph node metastases in patients with T1 breast cancer. A multivariate analysis. Cancer. 1994;73(2):350–3. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19940115)73:2<350::aid-cncr2820730219>3.0.co;2-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19940115)73:2<350::AID-CNCR2820730219>3.0.CO;2-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Tan LG, Tan YY, Heng D, Chan MY. Predictors of axillary lymph node metastases in women with early breast cancer in Singapore. Singapore Med J. 2005;46(12):693–7. PMid:16308642. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Gajdos C, Tartter PI, Bleiweiss IJ. Lymphatic invasion, tumor size, and age are independent predictors of axillary lymph node metastases in women with T1 breast cancers. Ann Surg. 1999;230(5):692–6. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199911000-00012. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199911000-00012 PMid:10561094 PMCid:PMC1420924. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Qiu PF, Liu JJ, Wang YS, Yang GR, Liu YB, Sun X, Wang CJ, Zhang ZP. Risk factors for sentinel lymph node metastasis and validation study of the MSKCC nomogram inbreast cancer patients. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2012;42(11):1002–7. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hys150. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hys150 PMid:23100610. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Ashturkar AV, Pathak GS, Deshmukh SD, Pandave HT. Factors predicting the axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer:is axillary node clearance indicated in every breast cancer patient?:factors predicting the axillary lymphnode metastases in breast cancer. Indian J Surg. 2011;73(5):331–5. doi: 10.1007/s12262-011-0315-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-011-0315-5 PMid:23024536 PMCid:PMC3208716. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Wu SG, He ZY, Ren HY, Yang LC, Sun JY, Li FY, Guo L, Lin HX. Use of CEA and CA15-3 to Predict Axillary Lymph Node Metastasis in Patients with Breast Cancer. J Cancer. 2016;7(1):37–41. doi: 10.7150/jca.13090. https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.13090 PMid:26722358 PMCid:PMC4679379. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Tseng HS, Chen LS, Kuo SJ, Chen ST, Wang YF, Chen DR. Tumor characteristics of breast cancer in predicting axillary lymph node metastasis. Med Sci Monit. 2014;20:1155–61. doi: 10.12659/MSM.890491. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.890491 PMid:24998473 PMCid:PMC4099209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Ko BS, Lim WS, Kim HJ, Yu JH, Lee JW, Kwan SB, Lee YM, Son BH, Gong GY, Ahn SH. Risk factor for axillary lymph node metastases in microinvasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(1):212–6. doi: 10.1245/s10434-011-1812-2. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1812-2 PMid:21633867. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.NgôC Mouttet D, De Rycke Y, Reyal F, Fourchotte V, Hugonnet F, Falcou MC, Bidard FC, Vincent-Salomon A, Fourquet A, Alran S. Validation over time of a nomogram including HER2 status to predict the sentinel node positivity in early breast carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38(12):1211–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2012.08.007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2012.08.007 PMid:22954526. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Yoo SH, Park IA, Chung YR, Kim H, Lee K, Noh DY, Im SA, Han W, Moon HG, Lee KH, Ryu HS. A histomorphologic predictive model for axillary lymph node metastasis in preoperative breastcancer core needle biopsy according to intrinsic subtypes. Hum Pathol. 2015;46(2):246–54. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2014.10.017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2014.10.017 PMid:25496835. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Danko ME, Bennett KM, Zhai J, Marks JR, Olson JA., Jr Improved staging in node-positive breast cancer patients using lymph node ratio:results in 1,788 patients with long-term follow-up. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210(5):797–805.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.02.045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.02.045 PMid:20421053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Cabioglu N, Yazici MS, Arun B, Broglio KR, Hortobagyi GN, Price JE, Sahin A. CCR7 and CXCR4 as novel biomarkers predicting axillary lymph node metastasis in T1 breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(16):5686–93. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-0014. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-0014 PMid:16115904. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Capdet J, Martel P, Charitansky H, Lim YK, Ferron G, Battle L, Landier A, Mery E, Zerdoub S, Roche H, Querleu D. Factors predicting the sentinel node metastases in T1 breast cancer tumor:an analysis of 1416 cases. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009;35(12):1245–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2009.06.002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2009.06.002 PMid:19574018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Susini T, Nori J, Olivieri S, Molino C, Marini G, Bianchi S, Vezzosi V, Livi L, Mascalchi M, Scarselli G. Predicting the status of axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer:a multiparameter approach including axillary ultrasound scanning. Breast. 2009;18(2):103–8. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2009.02.001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2009.02.001 PMid:19285396. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Wasuthit Y, Kongdan Y, Suvikapakornkul R, Lertsithichai P, Chirappapha P. Predictive factors of axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer. J Med Assoc Thai. 2011;94(1):65–70. PMid:21425730. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Giuliano AE, McCall L, Beitsch P, Whitworth PW, Blumencranz P, Leitch AM, Saha S, Hunt KK, Morrow M, Ballman K. Locoregional recurrence after sentinel lymph node dissection with or without axillary dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node metastases:the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2010;252(3):426–32. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181f08f32. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181f08f32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Meattini I, Saieva C, Bertocci S, Francolini G, Zei G, De Luca Cardillo C, Scotti V, Greto D, Bonomo P, Orzalesi L, Bianchi S, Livi L. Predictive factors for additional non-sentinel lymph node involvement in breast cancer patients with one positive sentinel node. Tumori. 2015;101(1):78–83. doi: 10.5301/tj.5000220. https://doi.org/10.5301/tj.5000220 PMid:25702658. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Nadeem RM, Gudur LD, Saidan ZA. An independent assessment of the 7 nomograms for predicting the probability of additional axillary nodal metastases after positive sentinel lymph node biopsy in a cohort of British patients with breastcancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2014;14(4):272–9. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2014.02.006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2014.02.006 PMid:25037530. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.van den Hoven I, Kuijt G, Roumen R, Voogd A, Steyerberg EW, Vergouwe Y. A head to head comparison of nine tools predicting non-sentinel lymph node status in sentinel node positive breast cancer women. J Surg Oncol. 2015;112(2):133–8. doi: 10.1002/jso.23992. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.23992 PMid:26258749. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.van den Hoven I, van Klaveren D, Voogd AC, Vergouwe Y, Tjan-Heijnen V, Roumen RM. A Dutch Prediction Tool to Assess the Risk of Additional Axillary Non-Sentinel Lymph Node Involvement in Sentinel Node-Positive Breast Cancer Patients. Clin Breast Cancer. 2016;16(2):123–30. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2015.09.003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2015.09.003 PMid:26602438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Kuo YL, Chen WC, Yao WJ, Cheng L, Hsu HP, Lai HW, Kuo SJ, Chen DR, Chang TW. Validation of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center nomogram for prediction of non-sentinel lymph node metastasis in sentinel lymph node positive breast cancer patients an international comparison. Int J Surg. 2013;11(7):538–43. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2013.05.005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2013.05.005 PMid:23707626. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Cordero JM, Bernet L, Cano R, Bustamante M, Vila R, Ballester B, González PJ. [Study of the sentinel node in breast cancer using lymphoscintigraphy and a fast method for cytokeratin] Rev Esp Med Nucl. 2004;23(1):9–14. doi: 10.1016/s0212-6982(04)72239-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0212-6982(04)72239-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Gur AS, Unal B, Johnson R, Ahrendt G, Bonaventura M, Gordon P, Soran A. Predictive probability of four different breast cancer nomograms for nonsentinel axillary lymph node metastasis in positive sentinel node biopsy. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208(2):229–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.10.029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.10.029 PMid:19228534. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Gur AS, Unal B, Ozbek U, Ozmen V, Aydogan F, Gokgoz S, Gulluoglu BM, Aksaz E, Ozbas S, Baskan S, Koyuncu A, Soran A Turkish Federation of Breast Disease Associations Protocol MF08-01 investigators. Validation of breast cancer nomograms for predicting the non-sentinel lymph node metastases after a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy in a multi-center study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36(1):30–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2009.05.007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2009.05.007 PMid:19535217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Cserni G, Bori R, Maráz R, Leidenius MH, Meretoja TJ, Heikkila PS, Regitnig P, Luschin-Ebengreuth G, Zgajnar J, Perhavec A, Gazic B, Lázár G, Takács T, Vörös A, Audisio RA. Multi-institutional comparison of non-sentinel lymph node predictive tools in breast cancer patients with high predicted risk of further axillary metastasis. Pathol Oncol Res. 2013;19(1):95–101. doi: 10.1007/s12253-012-9553-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-012-9553-5 PMid:22798061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Cserni G, Boross G, Maráz R, Leidenius MH, Meretoja TJ, Heikkila PS, Regitnig P, Luschin-Ebengreuth G, Zgajnar J, Perhavec A, Gazic B, Lázár G, Takács T, Vörös A, Audisio RA. Multicentre validation of different predictive tools of non-sentinel lymph node involvement in breast cancer. Surg Oncol. 2012;21(2):59–65. doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2011.12.001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2011.12.001 PMid:22197294. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Freedman GM, Fowble BL, Li T, Hwang ES, Schechter N, Devarajan K, Anderson PR, Sigurdson ER, Goldstein LJ, Bleicher RJ. Risk of positive nonsentinel nodes in women with 1-2 positive sentinel nodes related to age and molecular subtype approximated by receptor status. Breast J. 2014;20(4):358–63. doi: 10.1111/tbj.12276. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12276 PMid:24861613 PMCid:PMC4472437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Gülben K, Berberoğlu U, Aydoğan O, Kınaş V. Subtype is a predictive factor of nonsentinel lymph node involvement in sentinel node-positive breast cancer patients. J Breast Cancer. 2014;17(4):370–5. doi: 10.4048/jbc.2014.17.4.370. https://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2014.17.4.370 PMid:25548586 PMCid:PMC4278057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Williams C, Lin C-Y. Oestrogen receptors in breast cancer:basic mechanisms and clinical implications. Ecancer Medical Science. 2013;7:370. doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2013.370. PMid:24222786 PMCid:PMC3816846. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Gutierrez C, Schiff R. HER 2:Biology, Detection, and Clinical Implications. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135(1):55–62. doi: 10.1043/2010-0454-RAR.1. PMid:21204711 PMCid:PMC3242418. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.van Diest PJ, van der Wall E, Baak JPA. Prognostic value of proliferation in invasive breast cancer:a review. J Clin Pathol. 2004;57(7):675–681. doi: 10.1136/jcp.2003.010777. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.2003.010777 PMid:15220356 PMCid:PMC1770351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]