Lymph Node Ratio (LNR): Predicting Prognosis after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (NAC) in Breast Cancer Patients.
Breast cancer
lymph node
neoadjuvant chemotherapy
prognosis
Journal
European journal of breast health
ISSN: 2587-0831
Titre abrégé: Eur J Breast Health
Pays: Turkey
ID NLM: 101709357
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2019
Oct 2019
Historique:
received:
21
02
2019
accepted:
21
05
2019
entrez:
18
10
2019
pubmed:
18
10
2019
medline:
18
10
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Axillary lymph node status is an important prognostic factor in breast cancer (BC). Residual nodal disease burden after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is one of the important prognostic factors to determine the prognosis and in the treatment of BC. Lymph node ratio (LNR) defined as the ratio of the number of positive lymph nodes to total excised axillary lymph nodes, may be a stronger determinant of prognosis than pN in axillary nodal staging, although there is very limited data evaluating its prognostic value in the setting of NAC. In this cohort of patients, we studied the utility of LNR in predicting recurrence and overall survival (OS) after NAC. An Institutional cancer registry was queried from 2009 to 2014 for women with axillary node-positive BC with no evidence of distant metastasis, and who received NAC followed by surgery for loco-regional treatment (axillary dissection with breast conserving surgery or total mastectomy). Patients with axillary complete response were excluded. Locoregional recurrence (LRR), distant recurrence (DR) and overall survival (OS) rates were reviewed regarding pN and LNR. A total of 179 patients were analyzed. Median follow up time was 24 [25%, 75%: 13-42] months. Patients with pN1 in comparison to pN2 and pN3 had lower rate of LRR (9% vs. 15% and 14%, respectively; p=0.41), lower rate of DR (14% vs. 25% and 27%, respectively, p=0.16) and increased rate of OS (89% vs. 79% and 78%, respectively, p=0.04). In comparison to patients with LNR >20%, patients with LNR ≤20% had lower LRR (9% vs. 14%, p=0.25), lower DR (13% vs. 27%, p=0.01) and improved OS (89% vs. 79%, p=0.02) rates. In the pN1 group, patients who had a LNR >20% had higher DR (22% vs. 14%, p=0.48) rates in comparison to patients with LNR ≤20%. In ER/PR (+) patients who had LNR ≤20% DR was 6% compared with 23% in patient who had LNR >20% (p=0.02), and in triple negative patients' OS rate was significantly better compared the LNR less/equal or more than 20% (71% vs 33%, p=0.001). Our study demonstrated that LNR adds valuable information for the prognosis after NAC and this additional information should be considered when deciding further treatment and follow-up for patients who had residual tumor burden on the axilla. This observation should be tested in a larger study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31620684
doi: 10.5152/ejbh.2019.4848
pii: ejbh-15-4-249
pmc: PMC6776131
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
249-255Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Turkish Federation of Breast Diseases Associations.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Am J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jun;27(3):304-6
pubmed: 15170153
Future Oncol. 2009 Dec;5(10):1585-603
pubmed: 20001797
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2006 Dec;32(10):1082-8
pubmed: 16887320
Breast Cancer Res. 2004;6(6):R680-8
pubmed: 15535850
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011 Nov;130(2):507-15
pubmed: 21858659
J Am Coll Surg. 2008 Apr;206(4):704-8
pubmed: 18387477
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Jul 15;47(5):1177-83
pubmed: 10889370
J Am Coll Surg. 2010 May;210(5):797-805.e1, 805-7
pubmed: 20421053
Cancer Res Treat. 2015 Oct;47(4):757-64
pubmed: 25672578
Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Jun;19(6):1808-17
pubmed: 22207051
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Dec 1;66(5):1328-34
pubmed: 16997505
Am J Surg. 2002 Oct;184(4):299-301
pubmed: 12383887
Breast Cancer. 2014 Jan;21(1):1-9
pubmed: 24101545
Oncol Rep. 2003 Mar-Apr;10(2):363-8
pubmed: 12579273
N Engl J Med. 2002 Aug 22;347(8):567-75
pubmed: 12192016
Br J Cancer. 2013 Sep 3;109(5):1165-71
pubmed: 23942073
Am J Surg. 2006 Jun;191(6):827-9
pubmed: 16720159
J Clin Oncol. 1989 Mar;7(3):355-66
pubmed: 2918331
J Clin Oncol. 1999 Jun;17(6):1689-700
pubmed: 10561205
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jun 15;22(12):2303-12
pubmed: 15197191
Eur J Cancer. 2008 Aug;44(12):1670-7
pubmed: 18595686
Cancer. 2005 May 15;103(10):2006-14
pubmed: 15812825
Radiat Oncol. 2011 Oct 06;6:131
pubmed: 21978463
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Mar 1;27(7):1062-8
pubmed: 19164210
Ann Oncol. 2006 Nov;17(11):1644-9
pubmed: 16873428
PLoS One. 2013 Apr 23;8(4):e61410
pubmed: 23626682
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2002 Aug;28(5):481-9
pubmed: 12217299
Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Oct;23(10):3310-6
pubmed: 27401442
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Apr 1;35(10):1049-1060
pubmed: 28135148
Clin Breast Cancer. 2012 Dec;12(6):404-11
pubmed: 23026023
J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jun 20;24(18):2910-6
pubmed: 16782931
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 Mar 17;102(6):410-25
pubmed: 20190185