Axillary lymph node dissection in node-positive breast cancer: are ten nodes adequate and when is enough, enough?
National guidelines define adequate axillary lymph node dissections as those yielding ≥ 10 lymph nodes (LNs). We aimed to identify the optimal LN yield among node-positive patients.
Using the National Cancer Data Base (2010–2015), we categorized node-positive patients as follows: (1) neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC, cN1–3 or ypN1mi-3) or (2) upfront surgery (pN1–3). A restricted cubic splines model was used to estimate LN retrieval thresholds associated with change in overall survival (OS).
129,685 patients were identified: 21.2% NAC, 78.8% upfront surgery. Low, moderate, and high retrieval thresholds were estimated to be 1–6, 7–21, and > 21 LNs (upfront surgery), and 1–7, 8–22, and > 22 LNs (NAC). In an adjusted model, high versus low LN yield was associated with greater receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy (upfront surgery OR 1.96, p < 0.001) and greater use of adjuvant radiation (upfront surgery OR 1.08, p = 0.02; NAC OR 1.23, p = 0.002). After adjustment, high versus low LN retrieval was associated with improved OS (upfront surgery HR 0.86, p < 0.001; NAC HR 0.77, p < 0.001). Worse OS was associated with retrieving fewer LNs, likely as a result of an under-staged axilla and missed opportunity for adjuvant therapy, while better OS was independently associated with retrieval of up to approximately 20 LNs, after which survival did not improve.
In node-positive breast cancer, the number of nodes retrieved is significantly associated with an increased positive nodal count and greater use of adjuvant therapy. Removal of approximately 20 LNs may improve survival by both more accurate nodal staging and increased adjuvant therapy use.
KeywordsBreast cancer Node-positive Axillary lymph node dissection Staging Guidelines Overall survival
Dr. O. Fayanju is supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under Award Number 1KL2TR002554 (PI: Svetkey). Dr. R. Greenup is supported by the NIH BIRCWH K12HD043446 (PI: Andrews). This work is also supported by the Duke Cancer Institute through NIH Grant P30CA014236 (PI: Kastan).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to disclose.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Due to use of national de-identified data (National Cancer Data Base, NCDB), our institutional review board granted the study exempt status and no individual informed consent was needed.
- 2.National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2018) NCCN, Invasive Cancer, Surgical Axillary Staging. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf. Accessed 4 Jan 2019
- 10.Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Aft R, et al (2018) National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN, Invasive Cancer, Version 1.2018. In Kumar R, Shead DA (eds)Google Scholar
- 11.Caudle AS, Yang WT, Krishnamurthy S et al (2016) Improved axillary evaluation following neoadjuvant therapy for patients with node-positive breast cancer using selective evaluation of clipped nodes: implementation of target axillary dissection. J Clin Oncol 34:1072–1078CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 17.AJCC Cancer Staging Manual (ed 8th) (2016) Springer International Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 21.Overgaard M, Nielsen HM, Overgaard J (2007) Is the benefit of postmastectomy irradiation limited to patients with four or more positive nodes, as recommended in international consensus reports? A subgroup analysis of the DBCG 82 b&c randomized trials. Radiother Oncol 82:247–253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.EBCTCG (Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group), McGale P, Taylor C et al (2014) Effect of radiotherapy after mastectomy and axillary surgery on 10-year recurrence and 20-year breast cancer mortality: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 8135 women in 22 randomised trials. Lancet 383:2127–2135CrossRefGoogle Scholar