| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Original Article |
1 Department of Surgery, Section of Surgical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 13400 E. Shea Boulevard, Scottsdale, Arizona 85259
2 Department of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, 13400 E. Shea Boulevard, Scottsdale, Arizona 85259
Correspondence: Adress corespondence and reprint requests to: Richard J. Gray, MD; E-mail: gray.richard{at}mayo.edu.
Background: The influence of patient age on the risk of sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastasis in breast cancer has not been defined.
Methods: A breast cancer SLN database was analyzed. Factors associated with SLN metastasis were assessed by multiple logistic regression modeling. Age, T stage, estrogen receptor status, HER-2/neu status, grade, angiolymphatic invasion, lobular histology, tubular/ mucinous histology, and the number of SLNs resected were assessed.
Results: Data were available for 810 patients with invasive breast cancer. SLN metastasis was observed in 22% of the patients. The factors most strongly associated with SLN metastasis were angiolymphatic invasion, T stage, and age. Age ranged from 29 to 95 years. The median age was 66 years. Overall, SLN metastasis was more common in younger patients (
66 years) than in older patients (>66 years; P < .001). Among patients without angiolymphatic invasion, SLN metastasis was nearly twice as common in the younger patients as in the older patients. The effect of angiolymphatic invasion as a risk for SLN metastasis was much greater in the older age group.
Conclusions: In addition to known risk factors, age independently predicts the risk of SLN metastasis in breast cancer. Angiolymphatic invasion seems to be a more powerful predictor of SLN metastasis in older patients.
Key Words: Breast cancer Elderly Sentinel node Neoplasm metastasis
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
A. Y. Chen, M. T. Halpern, N. M. Schrag, A. Stewart, M. Leitch, and E. Ward Disparities and Trends in Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Among Early-Stage Breast Cancer Patients (1998-2005) J Natl Cancer Inst, April 2, 2008; 100(7): 462 - 474. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |