Annals of Surgical Oncology Cite Track
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

10.1245/ASO.2006.07.024
Annals of Surgical Oncology 13:783-787 (2006)
© 2006 Society of Surgical Oncology
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Escobar, P. F.
Right arrow Articles by Crowe, J. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Escobar, P. F.
Right arrow Articles by Crowe, J. P.

Original Article

Prognostic Significance of Residual Breast Disease and Axillary Node Involvement for Patients Who Had Primary Induction Chemotherapy for Advanced Breast Cancer

Pedro F. Escobar, MD1, Rebecca J. Patrick, MA1, Lisa A. Rybicki, MS2, David Hicks, MD3, David E. Weng, MD, PhD4 and Joseph P. Crowe, MD1

1 Department of General Surgery–Breast Center, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, The Cleveland Clinic Breast Center, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A10, Cleveland, Ohio 44195
2 Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, The Cleveland Clinic Breast Center, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A10, Cleveland, Ohio 44195
3 Department of Surgical Pathology, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, The Cleveland Clinic Breast Center, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A10, Cleveland, Ohio 44195
4 Department of Hematology and Oncology, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, The Cleveland Clinic Breast Center, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A10, Cleveland, Ohio 44195

Correspondence: Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Pedro F. Escobar, MD; E-mail: escobap{at}ccf.org.


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Background: We performed this study to determine the prognostic significance of clinical tumor size, pathologic measurement of residual tumor, and number of positive axillary nodes in the surgical specimen relative to overall survival for patients who underwent primary induction chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer.

Methods: Data, collected prospectively between 1997 and 2002, included clinical tumor-node-metastasis stage, age at diagnosis, hormone receptor status, type of preoperative chemotherapy, histological type, surgical procedure, pathologic measurement in centimeters of residual breast tumor, and the number of positive axillary nodes in the surgical specimen. Univariable correlates of residual breast disease were assessed by using the {chi}2 test. Recursive partitioning analysis was used to determine the prognostic significance of clinical tumor size, residual tumor size, and pathologic node involvement relative to overall survival. Survival was estimated by using the method of Kaplan and Meier and compared by using the log-rank test. A P value of < .05 was considered significant.

Results: Data were available for 85 patients with advanced breast cancer. Although uni-variable analysis identified increasing age, clinically involved axillary nodes, and a higher clinical tumor-node-metastasis stage as predictors of an increased risk of residual disease, recursive partitioning analysis identified more than three involved axillary nodes in the surgical specimen, with or without any measurable residual breast disease, as the most significant predictor of decreased survival (P < .001).

Conclusions: Pathologic axillary node involvement was the most significant predictor of decreased survival for patients who had undergone primary induction chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer.

Key Words: Advanced breast cancer • Primary induction chemotherapy • Clinical outcome • Axillary lymph nodes • Metastatic breast cancer


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Primary induction chemotherapy (PIC) in combination with surgery has become the standard treatment modality for patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC).13 The advantages of PIC for ABC include possible breast conservation for patients with large tumors and the opportunity to assess clinical response after PIC by pathologic examination of the surgical specimen.4

PIC was introduced in the 1970s. Randomized clinical trials58 comparing clinical outcomes between patients who underwent PIC for ABC and those who did not concluded that PIC offered similar disease-free and overall survival (OS).911 Several studies have identified molecular or pathologic markers that may predict the clinical and pathologic response to PIC or estimate OS, including residual tumor size,12 clinical tumor-node-metastasis tumor stage, HER-2/neu overexpression, hormone receptor status,13,14 and axillary node involvement.15 Another study suggests that axillary lymph node dissection may not be necessary if the clinical response to PIC is deemed complete.16 Generally residual breast disease (with or without axillary node involvement) or complete pathologic remission correlates with disease-free survival and OS for patients with ABC. The purposes of this study were to identify correlates of residual breast disease and to determine the prognostic significance of clinical tumor size, residual breast disease, and axillary lymph node involvement for patients with ABC treated with PIC followed by surgery.


    METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Study Population and Data Collection
Data were collected prospectively in our institutional review board–approved Breast Center Information System for all patients who received a diagnosis of breast cancer between 1997 and 2002 and who had undergone PIC followed by surgery. All patients were staged clinically: tumor size (diameter) was estimated to the closest centimeter, axillary node involvement was either determined by palpation or derived as an incidental finding on chest computed tomographic scan, and routine metastatic evaluations were performed if clinical findings warranted them. After PIC, all patients underwent either mastectomy or partial mastectomy; either procedure included axillary node dissection. Residual breast tumor size was measured in centimeters, and this measurement was subtracted from the clinical estimate. The number of involved axillary nodes was determined. Patients with inflammatory breast cancer (cT4d) were excluded from this analysis. Additional variables included age at diagnosis, hormone receptor status, preoperative chemotherapy type, histological type, and surgical procedure.

Histopathologic Evaluation After Chemotherapy
The pathologic evaluation of a breast tumor after PIC often differed from those that had not been treated before surgery. For this study, the pathologist determined the location of the lesion by reviewing the imaging studies. If a gross lesion was identified in the resected tissue, measurements were taken in three dimensions, and the area was thoroughly sampled for microscopic examination. If a gross lesion was not identified (a finding not uncommon after PIC), then the region of the prior mass, as determined by imaging and/or clinical examination, was located and thoroughly sampled for microscopic examination. In such cases, if residual tumor was seen microscopically, then the greatest diameter of invasive tumor from the histological section was measured and reported.

Not infrequently after PIC, the microscopic appearance of the remaining gross lesion demonstrated fibrosis with scattered clusters of residual tumor cells (often with tissue edema), which made up no more than 20% to 30% of the grossly identified mass. Before chemotherapy, much of this gross lesion would have been full of tumor cells (as is seen in untreated cases). These cells were eradicated by chemotherapy and so described as infiltrating carcinoma with treatment effect.

All identified lymph nodes were submitted in their entirety for microscopic evaluation. If metastatic tumor was seen, it was measured, and the presence of extracapsular extension, if any, was noted. Occasionally areas of necrosis or fibrosis with edema or inflammation of the node were observed and were believed to be areas of treated metastatic disease. If the node was a sentinel node and tumor was not seen with hematoxylin and eosin stain, then it was further analyzed by using immunohistochemical stains for cytokeratins. Often these were negative, but occasionally isolated tumor cells were seen with immunohistochemical stains only and were reported as such.

Statistical Analysis and Study Design
Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA), also known as classification and regression tree, is a technique used to determine subsets of explanatory variables most important for prediction of some response variable, which may be either binary or time to event, such as survival. RPA separates patients into groups based on outcome; patients in the same group have similar outcomes, and patients in different groups have different outcomes.

In the analysis of residual breast disease, RPA with a binary end point was used to determine whether cutpoints that correlated with residual breast disease could be determined for the two continuous variables: age and clinical tumor size. Five variables were considered as potential correlates of residual breast disease: age, hormone status, clinical tumor size, clinical axillary nodes, and clinical tumor-node-metastasis stage. The {chi}2 test was used to assess the association of these variables with residual breast disease.

RPA with a time-to-event outcome was used to assess the prognostic significance of clinical tumor size, residual tumor size, and residual axillary nodes for OS, which was then estimated by using the method of Kaplan and Meier and compared among groups by using the log-rank test. A P value of < .05 was considered significant.


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Data were available for 85 patients. The mean age at diagnosis was 48 years (SD ± 12). Hormone receptor status was available for 82 patients; 51 patients (62%) were hormone receptor positive. Seventy (82%) patients underwent doxorubicin-based PIC in combination with cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel, a taxane, or 5-fluorouracil. Seven (8%) patients underwent non–doxorubicin-based PIC, including three who were given cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/5-fluorouracil, one who was given taxane/trastuzumab, and three who had hormonal treatment only. Complete PIC data were unavailable for 8 patients.

Clinical histological findings included 63 patients with infiltrating ductal carcinoma, 13 with infiltrating lobular carcinoma, and 9 with either mixed histological characteristics or infiltrating medullary carcinoma. Clinical tumor-node-metastasis staging identified 17 patients with stage II disease, 35 with stage IIIA, 17 with stage IIIB, and 16 with stage IV, including 7 patients who had T2 tumors, 55 who had T3, and 23 who had T4a/b/c. The mean clinical tumor-node-metastasis size was 8.5 cm (SD ± 3.8 cm). Clinical tumor-node-metastasis axillary node status included seven cases classified as N0, 15 classified as NX, and 63 classified as N1.

After completion of PIC, 67 (79%) patients chose mastectomy, and 18 chose partial mastectomy; all patients underwent axillary lymph node dissection. Pathologic evaluation of breast specimens showed complete tumor resolution in 13 specimens, whereas 72 did not show resolution, including 52 in which infiltrating ductal carcinoma was identified, 14 with lobular carcinoma, and 6 with either mixed infiltrating histological characteristics or only ductal carcinoma-in-situ. The mean residual tumor diameter was 3.0 cm, representing a mean reduction of 62%. Pathologic evaluation of axillary lymph nodes showed no metastases for 35 patients, whereas 50 patients did have metastases.

In the assessment of presurgical characteristics versus residual breast disease, RPA of the two continuous variables split patients into two groups based on age (≤56 and >56 years) and three groups based on clinical tumor-node-metastasis size (1–6, 7–12, and 13–20 cm). Univariable correlates of residual infiltrating breast cancer were identified to determine whether any presurgical characteristics could help predict which patients would likely have residual breast disease (Table 1Go). Age at diagnosis, clinical tumor-node-metastasis axillary node status, and clinical tumor-node-metastasis stage were found to be univariable correlates of residual breast disease, whereas hormone receptor status and clinical tumor-node-metastasis size were not. All patients >56 years of age at diagnosis had residual breast disease, compared with 79% of patients ≤56 years of age (P = .028). The likelihood of residual breast disease also increased for patients who had a clinical tumor-node-metastasis stage of N1 (P = .038) and as the clinical tumor-node-metastasis stage increased (P = .004).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1. Univariable correlates of residual breast cancer
 
Next, RPA for survival data found that pathologic tumor size and pathologic axillary node involvement were prognostic, whereas clinical tumor size was not. On the basis of the pathologic tumor measurement and the number of involved axillary nodes, RPA identified three groups of patients: (1) those with zero to three involved axillary nodes and a residual tumor size of 0 to .4 cm; (2) those with zero to three axillary nodes and a residual tumor size of >.4 cm; and (3) those with more than three axillary nodes with or without any residual tumor. Patients with more than three involved axillary nodes had the worst OS (Fig. 1Go).


Figure 1
View larger version (3K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIG. 1. Survival by residual tumor size and pathologic axillary node involvement.

 

    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Our findings are similar to other studies17,18 in which multiple biological, clinical, and pathologic markers have been sought to predict responses to PIC and OS for patients with ABC. In this study, the likelihood of residual breast disease did not correlate with hormone receptor status (P = .76). Nevertheless, hormone receptor status is as important for ABC patients as for any other breast cancer patients; hormone receptor–positive ABC patients have improved outcomes if hormone therapy is used as part of the treatment modality.19,20

The significance of pathologic axillary node involvement for ABC patients has been reported in some studies,2123 including one that concluded that axillary lymph node status associated with age at diagnosis was the most important predictor of OS.24 Krag and Single25 found that the number of axillary nodes removed was associated with survival, even when those nodes were interpreted pathologically as negative, thus suggesting that axillary lymph node dissection alone may contribute to OS. This finding is in contrast to studies that suggest that a good clinical response to PIC may obviate the need for axillary lymph node dissection16 or that axillary irradiation may be sufficient.26 In this study, the number of involved axillary nodes in the pathologic specimen, with or without residual tumor in the breast, was the most important predictor of OS.

To assess OS more accurately, long-term follow-up is required; longer follow-up captures additional deaths for patients with ABC.24,27,28 Although an increased OS was observed for patients with zero to three involved axillary nodes and residual disease of 0 to .4 cm, in the absence of data from a randomized trial, a definitive conclusion about OS in this subset of patients is unsupported because this finding may reflect selection bias or insufficient follow-up time.

PIC may reduce the size of the primary breast tumor, decrease the number of involved axillary nodes, or both; nevertheless, this theoretical advantage has generally not translated into a significant improvement in OS.26 Neither the significance of histopathologic evaluation nor the standards to measure pathological response in this patient population are universal, but our findings suggest that the degree of pathologic axillary lymph node involvement after PIC is perhaps the most important predictor of OS.

Received for publication July 22, 2005. Accepted for publication November 23, 2005.


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Adair F, Berg J, Joubert L, Robbins GF. Long term follow-up of breast cancer patients: the 30-year report. Cancer 1996; 33:1145–50.
  2. Hortobagyi GN. Comprehensive management of locally advanced breast cancer. Cancer 1990; 66:1387–91.[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Bear HD. Indications for neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Semin Oncol 1998; 25:3–12.[Medline]
  4. Schwartz GF, Birchansky CA, Komarnicky LT, et al. Induction chemotherapy followed by breast conservation for locally advanced carcinoma of the breast. Cancer 1994; 73:362–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Jakesz R. The ABCSG: comparison of pre- vs. postoperative chemotherapy in breast cancer patients—four-year results of Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group (ABCSG) trial 7 (abstract). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001; 20:125.
  6. Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E, et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15:2483–93.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Scholl SM, Fouquet A, Asselain B, et al. Primary versus adjuvant chemotherapy in premenopausal patients with tumors considered too large for breast conserving surgery: preliminary results of a randomised trial. Eur J Cancer 1994; 30A:645–52.
  8. van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJH, Julien JP, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy in primary operable breast cancer: results from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 10902. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19:4224–37.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N, et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16:2672–85.[Abstract]
  10. Pierga JY, Mouret E, Dieras V, et al. Prognostic value of persistent node involvement after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2000; 83:1480–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Smith IC, Heys SD, Hutcheon AW, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Significantly enhanced response with docetaxel. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20:1456–66.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Rajan R, Esteva FJ, Symmans WF. Pathologic changes in breast cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy: implications for the assessment of response. Clin Breast Cancer 2004; 5:235–8.[Medline]
  13. Colleoni M, Zahrieh D, Gelber RD, et al. Preoperative systemic treatment: prediction of responsiveness. Breast 2003; 12:538–42.[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Penault-Llorca F, Bouchet MF, Amat S, et al. Induction chemotherapy for breast carcinoma: predictive markers and relation with outcome. Int J Oncol 2003; 22:1319–25.[Medline]
  15. Newman LA, Pernick NL, Adsay V, et al. Histopathologic evidence of tumor regression in the axillary lymph nodes of patients treated with preoperative chemotherapy correlates with breast cancer outcome. Ann Surg Oncol 2003; 10:713–5.[Free Full Text]
  16. Arimappamagan A, Kadambari D, Srinivasan K, et al. Complete axillary conversion after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer: a step towards conserving axilla?. Indian J Cancer 2004; 41:13–7.[Medline]
  17. Kling KM, Ostrzega N, Schmit P. Breast conservation after induction chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. Am Surg 1997; 6:861–4.
  18. Valagussa P. Prognostic factors in locally advanced noninflammatory breast cancer: long-term results following primary chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1990; 15:137–47.[CrossRef][Medline]
  19. Hortobagyi GN. Management of stage III primary breast cancer with primary chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy. Cancer 1988; 62:2507–16.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Zanbetti M. Combined sequential approach in locally advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1999; 10:305–10.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Danforth DN, Zujewski J, O’Shaughnessy J, et al. Selection of local therapy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage III A, B breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 1998; 5:150–8.[Abstract]
  22. Schwartz GF, Cantor RI, Biermann WA. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy before definitive treatment for stage III carcinoma of the breast. Arch Surg 1987; 122:1430–4.[Abstract]
  23. Kuer HM, Newman LA, Fornage BD, et al. Role of axillary lymph node dissection after tumor downstaging with induction chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 1998; 5:673–80.[Abstract]
  24. Gajdos C, Tartter P, Estabrook A, Gistrak MA, Jaffer S, Bleiweiss IJ. Relationship of clinical and pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and outcome of locally advanced breast cancer. J Surg Oncol 2002; 80:4–11.[CrossRef][Medline]
  25. Krag DN, Single RM. Breast cancer survival according to number of nodes removed. Ann Surg Oncol 2003; 10:1152–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Lenert JT, Vlastos G, Mirza NQ, et al. Primary tumor response to induction chemotherapy as a predictor of histological status of axillary nodes in operable breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 1999; 6:762–7.[Abstract]
  27. Low JA, Berman AW, Steinberg SM, et al. Long-term follow-up for locally advanced and inflammatory breast cancer patients treated with multimodality therapy. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22:4067–77.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Smith R, et al. International expert panel on the use of primary (preoperative) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: review and recommendations. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:2600–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]




This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Escobar, P. F.
Right arrow Articles by Crowe, J. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Escobar, P. F.
Right arrow Articles by Crowe, J. P.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS