Previous reports of breast cancer have generally analyzed patients with one to three positive lymph nodes as a single group, often leading to controversy regarding the practical clinical applicability. The present study separately analyzed the survival outcomes of Stage T1-T2 breast cancer patients according to whether one, two, or three axillary nodes were pathologically positive.
The records of 5,996 patients were available for analysis from the population-based Saskatchewan provincial registry between 1981 and 1995. Because the reliability of the nodal assessment depends on the number of lymph nodes sampled, only those 755 patients with Stage T1-T2 disease and eight or more nodes examined were analyzed further for overall survival and cause-specific survival (CSS).
Patients with one and two positive nodes had nearly indistinguishable survival plots, but those with three positive nodes had a distinct trend toward worse survival. The overall survival rate of patients with one, two, and three nodes at 5, 10, and 15 years was 82.7%, 77.0%, and 79.0%, 64.8%, 60.9%, and 52.8%, and 48.8%, 48.0%, and 40.9%, respectively (p = .11). The corresponding CSS rates at 5, 10, and 15 years were 89.4%, 82.0%, and 81.3%, 78.87%, 72.9%, and 62.1%, and 72.7%. 69.0%, and 55.6% (p = .0004). The use of regional radiotherapy did not confer any apparent survival benefit in terms of either overall survival or CSS.
Patients with one or two positive nodes had a similar CSS. However, those with three positive nodes fared worse, with a significantly reduced CSS compared with those with one or two involved nodes. Thus, the survival data among patients with one to three nodes positive reveals clearly relevant differences when analyzed separately.
"Among node-positive patients, those with ≤2 versus >2 metastatic lymph nodes, the 5-year regional-recurrence CCI was 0% versus 39% (P = 0.004) when treated with surgery alone. This is an interesting observation as the cut-offs for poor prognosis for prostate and breast cancers are also two involved nodes [57, 58]. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The role of surgeons in the treatment of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) of the skin is reviewed, with respect to diagnosis and treatment. Most of the data in the literature are case reports. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment. A wide local excision, with sentinel node (SLN) biopsy, is the recommended treatment of choice. If SLN is involved, nodal dissection should be performed; unless patient is unfit, then regional radiotherapy can be given. Surgeons should always refer patients for assessment of the need for adjuvant treatments. Adjuvant radiotherapy is well tolerated and effective to minimize recurrence. Adjuvant chemotherapy may be considered for selected node-positive patients, as per National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline. Data are insufficient to assess whether adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival. Recurrent disease should be treated by complete surgical resection if possible, followed by radiotherapy and possibly chemotherapy. Generally results of multimodality treatment for recurrent disease are better than lesser treatments. Future research should focus on newer chemotherapy and molecular targeted agents in the adjuvant setting and for gross disease.
"Breast carcinoma is one of the most common tumors in daily practice and is usually associated with multifocality and multicentricity, mainly due to the use of new imaging technology for diagnosis. While some useful prognostic factors in these tumors are clinically well established       , less known and controversy is the multifocality, which is not always well defined from a conceptual point of view   and often analyzed and associated with multicentricity. Also, tumor size is still under discussion  which one considered, the larger lesion or the sum of all lesions; it seems that the first option shown has superior clinical utility  . "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among American women. Due to increased screening, the majority of patients present with early-stage breast cancer. The Oxford Overview Analysis demonstrates that adjuvant hormonal therapy and polychemotherapy reduce the risk of recurrence and death from breast cancer. Adjuvant systemic therapy, however, has associated risks and it would be useful to be able to optimally select patients most likely to benefit. The purpose of adjuvant systemic therapy is to eradicate distant micrometastatic deposits. It is essential therefore to be able to estimate an individual patient's risk of harboring clinically silent micrometastatic disease using established prognostic factors. It is also beneficial to be able to select the optimal adjuvant therapy for an individual patient based on established predictive factors. It is standard practice to administer systemic therapy to all patients with lymph node-positive disease. However, there are clearly differences among node-positive women that may warrant a more aggressive therapeutic approach. Furthermore, there are many node-negative women who would also benefit from adjuvant systemic therapy. Prognostic factors therefore must be differentiated from predictive factors. A prognostic factor is any measurement available at the time of surgery that correlates with disease-free or overall survival in the absence of systemic adjuvant therapy and, as a result, is able to correlate with the natural history of the disease. In contrast, a predictive factor is any measurement associated with response to a given therapy. Some factors, such as hormone receptors and HER2/neu overexpression, are both prognostic and predictive.
The Oncologist 02/2004; 9(6):606-16. DOI:10.1634/theoncologist.9-6-606 · 4.87 Impact Factor
Rieneke van de Ven, Kim van Pul, Shaghayegh Aliabadi, Petrousjka van den Tol, Lisette A te Velde, Emiel JTh Rutgers, Ronald JCLM Vuylsteke, Hein BAC Stockmann, Christopher Dubay, Chris Harrington, Bernard A Fox, Tanja D de Gruijl,
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.