Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Validation and Limitations of Use of a Breast Cancer Nomogram Predicting the Likelihood of Non–Sentinel Node Involvement After Positive Sentinel Node Biopsy

  • Breast
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) for patients with positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) is currently under discussion in the literature. The breast cancer nomogram (BCN), an online tool developed by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), aims to predict the risk of positive non-SLN in SLN-positive patients. The purpose of this study was to test the accuracy of the nomogram on patients with macrometastatic and micrometastatic SLN-positive biopsy findings.

Methods

Patient characteristics, tumor pathology, and positive SLN characteristics were collected on 588 consecutive patients who underwent completion ALND. The MSKCC BCN tool was used to calculate risk of metastases for all 588 cases that included a subgroup of the 213 patients with SLN micrometastases. The BCN was performed for positive SLN biopsy findings regardless of the method of metastasis detection. Evaluation of the BCN was performed by the area under the curve method.

Results

The BCN applied to all 588 patients achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) of .724 (range, .677–.771) compared with .76 in the MSKCC study. When the tool was applied solely to micrometastases found by hematoxylin and eosin staining and metastases found by immunohistochemistry, the area under the ROC was .538 (range, .423–.653).

Conclusions

The MSKCC nomogram has been validated for all the patients having a metastatic SLN at the Institut Curie. However, this model was not reliably predictive for positive non–SLN in cases with micrometastic positive SLN.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

FIG. 1.
FIG. 2.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Krag DN, Weaver DL, Alex JC, Fairbank JT. Surgical resection and radiolocalization of sentinel lymph node in breast cancer using a gamma probe. Surg Oncol 1993; 2:335–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Giuliano AE, Kirgan DM, Guenther JM, Morton DL. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymphadenectomy for breast cancer. Ann Surg 1994; 200:391–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Giuliano AE, Jones RC, Brennan M, Statman R. Sentinel lymphadenctomy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15:2345–50

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Albertini JJ, Lyman GH, Cox C, et al. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node biopsy in the patient with breast cancer. JAMA 1996; 276:1818–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Galimberti V, et al. Sentinelnode biopsy to avoid axillary dissection in breast cancer with clinically negative lymph-nodes. Lancet 1997; 349:1864–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. O’Hea BJ, Hill AD, El Shirbiny Am, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: initial experience at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. J Am Coll Surg 1998; 186:423–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Krag D, Weaver D, Ashikaga T, et al. The sentinel node in breast cancer: a multicenter validation study. N Engl J Med 1998; 339:941–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Viale G, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy and axillary dissection in breast cancer: results in a large series. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91:368–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cady B. Guest Editorial, case against axillary lymphadenectomy for most patients with infiltrating breast cancer. J surg Oncol 1997; 66:7–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Nos C, Harding C, Freneaux P, Trie A, Falcou MC, Sastres-Garau X, Clough KB. Predicting of tumour in remaining axillary lymph nodes when the sentinel node in a woman with breast cancer contains metastases. Br J Surg 2003; 90;11:1354–60

    Google Scholar 

  11. Julian TB, Anderson S, Krag D, et al. Continued technical results of NSABP B-32: does a positive sentinel node biopsy require an axillary dissection? Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005; 94:S20

    Google Scholar 

  12. Degnim AC, Kriffith KA, Newman L. Clinicopathologic features of metastasis in non sentinel lymph nodes of breast carcinoma patients: a metaanalysis. Cancer 2003; 98:2307–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Van Zee KJ, Manasseh D, Bevilacqua J, et al. A nomogram for predicting the likelihood of additional nodal metastases in breast cancer patients with a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 2003; 10:1140–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nos C, Freneaux P, Guilbert S, Falcou MC, Salmon RJ, Clough KB. Sentinel lymph node detection for breast cancer: which patients are best suited for the patent blue dye only method of identification? Ann Surg Oncol 2001; 8:438–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Salmon RJ, Nos C, Lojodice F, et al. Sentinel node and operable breast cancer: utilization of blue dye injection: pilot study. Ann Chir 2000; 125:253–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Freneaux P, Nos C, Vincent-Salomon A, et al. Histological detection of minimal metastatic involvement in axillary sentinel nodes: a rational basis for a sensitive methodology usable in daily practice. Mod Pathol 2002; 15:641–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zweig MH, Campbell G. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 1993; 39:561–77

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Metz CE. ROC methodology in radiologic imaging. Invest Radiol 1986; 21:720–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ: The meaning of the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982; 143:29–36

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lambert L, Hunt KK, Hwang RF, Meric-Bernstam F, et al. Validation of a breast cancer nomogram for predicting additional nodal metastases after positive sentinel node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 2005; 12(Suppl):S17

    Google Scholar 

  21. Degnim A, Reynolds C, Newman LA, et al. Nonsentinel node metastasis in breast cancer patients: assessment of an existing and a new predictive nomogram. Am J Surg 2005; 190:543–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Soni NK, Carmalt HL, Gillette DJ, Spillane AJ. Evaluation of a breast cancer nomogram for prediction of non-sentinel lymph node positivity. Eur J Sur Oncol 2005; 31(9):958–64

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kocsis L, Svebis M, Cserni G, et al. Use and limitations of a nomogram predicting the likelihood of non-sentinel node involvement after a positive sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer patients. Am Surg 2004; 70:1019–24

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Smidt ML, Kuster M, Strobbe LJA, et al. Can the Memorial Sloan-Hettering Cancer Center nomogram predict the like lihood of sentinel lymph node metastases in breast cancer patients in the Netherlands? Ann Surg Oncol 12:1066–72

  25. Viale G, Maiorano E, Mazzarol G, et al. Predicting the risk for additional axillary metastases in patients with breast carcinoma and positive sentinel lymph node biopsy. Ann Surg 2005; 241:319–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Dowlatshahi K, Fan M, Snider H, Habib F. Lymph node micrometastases from breast carcinoma. Cancer 1997; 80:1188–97

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Chapgar A, Middleton LP, Hunt KK, et al. Clinical outcome of patients with lymph node–negative breast carcinoma who have sentinel lymph node micrometastases detected by immunohistochemistry. Cancer 2005; 103:1581–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Langer I, Marti R, Zuber M, et al. Axillary recurrence rate in breast cancer patients with negative sentinel lymph node or SLN micrometastases. Ann Surg 2005; 241:152–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fournier K, Schiller A, Perry R, Laronga C. Micrometastasis in the sentinel lymph node of breast cancer does not mandate completion axillary dissection. Ann Surg 2004; 239:859–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cserni G, Gregori D, Bussolati, et al. Meta-analysis of non-sentinel node metastases associated with micrometastatic sentinel nodes in breast cancer. Br J Surg 2004; 91:1245–52

  31. Cox C, Vrcel V, Riker A, et al. Significance of sentinel lymph node micrometastasis on survival for patients with invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005; 94:S21

    Google Scholar 

  32. American College of Surgeons Oncology Group. Giuliano A. A randomized trial of axillary node dissection in women with clinical T1 or T2 N0 M0 breast cancer who have a positive sentinel node. ACOZOG-Z0011. 2004. Available at: http://www.acosog.org/studies/organ_site/breast/index.jsp. Accessed January 16, 2006

  33. National Cancer Institute, US National Institutes of Health. Clinical trials. International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG). Galimberti V. Trial 23-01. Phase III randomized study of surgical resection with or without axillary lymph node dissection in women with clinically node-negative breast cancer with sentinel node micrometastasis. 2004. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/IBCSG-23-01. Accessed January 16, 2006

  34. Mansel R. AMAROS after mapping of the axilla: radiotherapy or surgery. EORTC 10981-22023. Available at: http://www.ncrn.org.uk/portfolio/data.asp?ID=1424. Accessed January 16, 2006

  35. Salmon RJ, Marcolet A, Vieira M, Languille O. Sentinel node biopsy or limited oriented axillary dissection in early breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2005; 31(9):949–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Specht MC, Kattan MW, Van Zee, et al. Predicting nonsentinel node status after positive sentinel lymph biopsy for breast cancer: clinician versus nomogram. Ann Sur Oncol 2005; 12:1–6

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Drs. C. Nos and K. B. Clough (Institut du Sein, Paris) for participating in the study and Dr. M. W. Kattan (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York) for information to validate the BCN.

The Institut Curie Breast Cancer Study Group is coordinated by Brigitte Sigal-Zafrani, Department of Pathology, Institut Curie, Paris, France.

Presented in part at the 29th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, December 14–17, 2006, San Antonio, Texas.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Séverine Alran MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alran, S., De Rycke, Y., Fourchotte, V. et al. Validation and Limitations of Use of a Breast Cancer Nomogram Predicting the Likelihood of Non–Sentinel Node Involvement After Positive Sentinel Node Biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 14, 2195–2201 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-006-9331-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-006-9331-2

Keywords

Navigation