THE PREDICTIVE PROBABILITY OF TWO DIFFERENT BREAST CANCER NOMOGRAMS FOR NON SENTINEL AXILLARY LYMPH NODE METASTASIS IN POSITIVE SENTINEL LYMPH NODE BIOPSY

被引:0
|
作者
Guer, Akif Serhat [1 ]
Uenal, Buelent [1 ]
Johnson, Ronald [1 ]
Ahrendt, Gretchen [1 ]
Bonaventura, Marguerite [1 ]
Evrensel, Turkkan [2 ]
Soran, Atilla [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Pittsburgh, Magee Womens Hosp, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
[2] Uludag Univ, Tip Fak, Med Onkol, Bursa, Turkey
来源
JOURNAL OF BREAST HEALTH | 2008年 / 4卷 / 03期
关键词
breast cancer; sentinel lymph node; nomogram;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
INTRODUCTION: Non sentinel axillary lymph node metastasis (NSLNM) occurs in 35-50% of breast cancer (BC) patients having positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLN). A nomogram which includes 8 variables was developed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in 2003 and it has been validated at sources outside that institution. The Stanford University group recently reported their nomogram which evaluated 3 variables. AIM: The aim of this study is to evaluate the predictability of two different scoring systems wherein 3 or 8 variables are used in the same patient groups. MATERIALS and METHODS: We identified 201 patients who had a positive SLN biopsy and completion axillary lymph node dissection at Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC over a 5 year period. The computerized BC nomograms developed by MSKCC and Stanford University were used to calculate the probability of non-sentinel lymph node metastases. Area Under (AUC) Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve (ROC) was calculated for each nomogram and the values more than 0.70 have been accepted that presents considerable discrimination. RESULTS: Sixty-six of 201 patients (32.8%) had positive axillary NSLNM. The mean predicted probability of positive NSLNM was 25.4% (3-93), and 66.3% (7-100) for the MSKCC and Stanford nomograms, respectively. The AUC values were 0.73 and 0.67 for MSKCC and Stanford nomograms, respectively. DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION: Nomograms for predicting the probability of NSLNM in BC patients have been in use for 5 years. It is clear there are discrepancies in the results of nomograms among the studies using the same scoring system. Notwithstanding the Stanford nomogram is easier to implement as it considers only 3 variables in our study, we found the MSKCC nomogram to be more predictive than the Stanford nomogram Nomograms developed at outside institutions should be used with caution when counseling patients regarding the risk of additional nodal disease.
引用
收藏
页码:169 / 173
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Comparison of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Alone and Completion Axillary Lymph Node Dissection for Node-Positive Breast Cancer
    Bilimoria, Karl Y.
    Bentrem, David J.
    Hansen, Nora M.
    Bethke, Kevin P.
    Rademaker, Alfred W.
    Ko, Clifford Y.
    Winchester, David P.
    Winchester, David J.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2009, 27 (18) : 2946 - 2953
  • [32] Validation of international predictive nomograms for non-sentinel lymph node metastases in Hong Kong breast cancer patients with positive sentinel lymph nodes
    Wong, Yu Yan
    Kwok, Kam Hung
    ANNALS OF BREAST SURGERY, 2022, 6
  • [33] Validation of Breast Cancer Models for Predicting the Nonsentinel Lymph Node Metastasis After a Positive Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in a Chinese Population
    Wu, Peiqi
    Zhao, Ke
    Liang, Yanli
    Ye, Weitao
    Liu, Zaiyi
    Liang, Changhong
    TECHNOLOGY IN CANCER RESEARCH & TREATMENT, 2018, 17
  • [34] Predictors to Assess Non-Sentinel Lymph Node Status in Breast Cancer Patients with Sentinel Lymph Node Metastasis
    Jinno, Hiromitsu
    Sakata, Michio
    Asaga, Sota
    Wada, Masahiro
    Shimada, Toshiyuki
    Kitagawa, Yuko
    Suzuki, Takayuki
    Nakahara, Tadaki
    Kitamura, Naoto
    Kubo, Atsushi
    Mukai, Makio
    Ikeda, Tadashi
    Kitajima, Masaki
    BREAST JOURNAL, 2008, 14 (06): : 551 - 555
  • [35] A nomogram predictive of non-sentinel lymph node involvement in breast cancer patients with a sentinel lymph node micrometastasis
    Houvenaeghel, G.
    Nos, C.
    Giard, S.
    Mignotte, H.
    Esterni, B.
    Jacquemier, J.
    Buttarelli, M.
    Classe, J. -M.
    Cohen, M.
    Rouanet, P.
    Llorca, F. Penault
    Bonnier, P.
    Marchal, F.
    Garbay, J. -R.
    Fraisse, J.
    Martel, P.
    Fondrinier, E.
    de Lara, C. Tunon
    Rodier, J. -F.
    EJSO, 2009, 35 (07): : 690 - 695
  • [36] Sentinel lymph node micrometastasis and predictive factors for metastasis in non-sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer
    Troilo, V. L.
    D'Eredita, G.
    Fischetti, F.
    Indellicato, R.
    Berardi, T.
    GIORNALE DI CHIRURGIA, 2009, 30 (05): : 1 - 5
  • [37] Sentinel lymph node biopsy alone without axillary lymph node dissection - follow up of sentinel lymph node negative breast cancer patients
    Reitsamer, R
    Peintinger, F
    Prokop, E
    Menzel, C
    Cimpoca, W
    Rettenbacher, L
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2003, 29 (03): : 221 - 223
  • [38] Preoperative MRI Improves Prediction of Extensive Occult Axillary Lymph Node Metastases in Breast Cancer Patients with a Positive Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy
    Loiselle, Christopher
    Eby, Peter R.
    Kim, Janice N.
    Calhoun, Kristine E.
    Allison, Kimberly H.
    Gadi, Vijayakrishna K.
    Peacock, Sue
    Storer, Barry E.
    Mankoff, David A.
    Partridge, Savannah C.
    Lehman, Constance D.
    ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2014, 21 (01) : 92 - 98
  • [39] Independent risk factors for axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer patients with one or two positive sentinel lymph nodes
    Wei Zhang
    Jing Xu
    Ke Wang
    Xiao-Jiang Tang
    Hua Liang
    Jian-Jun He
    BMC Women's Health, 20
  • [40] Sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy predicts pathological axillary lymph node status in breast cancer patients with clinically positive axillary lymph nodes at presentation
    Takei, Hiroyuki
    Yoshida, Takashi
    Kurosumi, Masafumi
    Inoue, Kenichi
    Matsumoto, Hiroshi
    Hayashi, Yuji
    Higuchi, Toru
    Uchida, Sayaka
    Ninomiya, Jun
    Kubo, Kazuyuki
    Oba, Hanako
    Nagai, Shigenori
    Tabei, Toshio
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2013, 18 (03) : 547 - 553