Advertisement

International Cancer Conference Journal

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 1–6 | Cite as

Multidisciplinary treatment for locally advanced breast cancer with internal mammary lymph node metastasis in an elderly patient

  • Haruko Takuwa
  • Wakako Tsuji
  • Yoshihiro Yamamoto
  • Chikako Yamauchi
  • Fumiaki Yotsumoto
Case report
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

Internal mammary lymph node (IMLN) metastasis is one of the important prognostic indicators in breast cancer. However, the management for IMLN metastasis is not established. The dissection for IMLN metastasis is not recommended in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines version3. 2015. Furthermore, radiotherapy including IMLN region and biopsy have attendant risks and hence should be performed with caution. Here, we describe our experience of multidisciplinary treatment for locally advanced breast cancer with IMLN metastasis in an elderly patient. Core-needle biopsy of the breast tumor histologically diagnosed the tumor as estrogen receptor positive, progesterone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative, and high Ki-67 labeling index. IMLN swelling was detected by ultrasonography and breast cancer metastasis was diagnosed by fine-needle aspiration cytology. The patient underwent mastectomy and axillary lymph node dissection, followed by postmastectomy radiation therapy. Systemic therapy using tegafur plus uracil (UFT®; Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) and letrozole was beneficial treatment for disease control.

Keywords

Breast cancer Internal mammary lymph node metastasis Multidisciplinary therapy 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No conflicts of interest relevant to this article are reported.

Ethical approval

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 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from the patient in this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Gnerlich JL, Barreto-Andrade JC, Czechura T et al (2014) Accurate staging with internal mammary chain sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 21(2):368–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Caudle AS, Yi M, Hoffman KE et al (2014) Impact of identification of internal mammary sentinel lymph node metastasis in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 21(1):60–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Postma EL, van Wieringen S, Hobbelink MG et al (2012) Sentinel lymph node biopsy of the internal mammary chain in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 134(2):735–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coombs NJ, Boyages J, French JR et al (2009) Internal mammary sentinel nodes: ignore, irradiate or operate? Eur J Cancer 45(5):789–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heuts EM, van der Ent FW, von Meyenfeldt MF et al (2009) Internal mammary lymph drainage and sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer - A study on 1008 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 35(3):252–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vrana D, Gatek J, Cwiertka K et al (2013) Internal mammary node management in breast cancer. A review. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 157:261–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koo MY, Lee SK, Bae SY et al (2012) Long-term outcome of internal mammary lymph node detected by lymphoscintigraphy in early breast cancer. J Breast Cancer 15:98–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Poortmans PM, Collette S, Kirkove C et al (2015) Internal mammary and medial supraclavicular irradiation in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 373(4):317–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tesarova P (2016) Specific Aspects of breast cancer therapy of elderly women. Biomed Res Int. 1381695Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines version 3. 2015Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    EBCTCG (Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group), McGale P, Taylor C, Correa C et al. 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, 2127–2135 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yin H, Qu Y, Wang X et al (2017) Impact of postmastectomy radiation therapy in T1-2 breast cancer patients with 1–3 positive axillary lymph nodes. Oncotarget 8:49564–49573Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Su YL, Li SH, Chen YY et al (2014) Post-mastectomy radiotherapy benefits subgroups of breast cancer patients with T1-2 tumor and 1–3 axillary lymph node(s) metastasis. Radiol Oncol 48:314–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aleknavičius E, Atkočius V, Kuzmickienė I et al (2014) Postmastectomy internal mammary nodal irradiation: a long-term outcome. Medicina (Kaunas) 50:230–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Watanabe T, Sano T, Takashima S et al (2009) Oral uracil and tegafur compared with classic cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil as postoperative chemotherapy in patients with node-negative, high-risk breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Study for Breast Cancer 01 Trial. J Clin Oncol 27:1368–1374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Park Y, Okamura K, Mitsuyama S et al (2009) Uracil-tegafur and tamoxifen vs cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil, and tamoxifen in post-operative adjuvant therapy for stage I, II, or IIIA lymph node-positive breast cancer: a comparative study. Br J Cancer 101(4):598–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Society of Clinical Oncology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Breast SurgeryShiga General HospitalMoriyamaJapan
  2. 2.Department of PathologyShiga General HospitalMoriyamaJapan
  3. 3.Department of Radiation OncologyShiga General HospitalMoriyamaJapan

Personalised recommendations