Meta-analysis to determine the clinical impact of axillary lymph node dissection in the treatment of invasive breast cancer

Machine Learning-Based Predictive Model for Mortality in Female Breast Cancer Patients Considering Lifestyle Factors

Purpose

To construct a free and accurate breast cancer mortality prediction tool by incorporating lifestyle factors, aiming to assist healthcare professionals in making informed decisions.

Patients and Methods

In this retrospective study, we utilized a ten-year follow-up dataset of female breast cancer patients from a major Chinese hospital and included 1,390 female breast cancer patients with a 7% (96) mortality rate. We employed six machine learning algorithms (ridge regression, k-nearest neighbors, neural network, random forest, support vector machine, and extreme gradient boosting) to construct a mortality prediction model for breast cancer.

Results

This model incorporated significant lifestyle factors, such as postsurgery sexual activity, use of totally implantable venous access ports, and prosthetic breast wear, which were identified as independent protective factors. Meanwhile, ten-fold cross-validation demonstrated the superiority of the random forest model (average AUC = 0.918; 1-year AUC = 0.914, 2-year AUC = 0.867, 3-year AUC = 0.883). External validation further supported the model's robustness (average AUC = 0.782; 1-year AUC = 0.809, 2-year AUC = 0.785, 3-year AUC = 0.893). Additionally, a free and user-friendly web tool was developed using the Shiny framework to facilitate easy access to the model.

Conclusion

Our breast cancer mortality prediction model is free and accurate, providing healthcare professionals with valuable information to support their clinical decisions and potentially promoting healthier lifestyles for breast cancer patients.

Axillary management in patients with clinical node-negative early breast cancer and positive sentinel lymph node: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The omission of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) or axillary radiation (AxRT) remains controversial in patients with clinical node-negative early breast cancer and a positive sentinel lymph node.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive review by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases (up to November 2023). Our primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), locoregional recurrence (LRR), and axillary recurrence (AR).

Results

We included 26 studies encompassing 145,548 women with clinical node-negative early breast cancer and positive sentinel lymph node. Pooled data revealed no significant differences between ALND and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) alone in terms of OS (hazard ratio [HR]0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-1.08, p=0.84), DFS (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90-1.19, p=0.61), LRR (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.45-1.20, p=0.31), and AR (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99-1.03, p=0.35). Similarly, no significant differences were observed between AxRT and SLNB alone for OS (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.32-1.02, p=0.06) and DFS (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.26-1.05, p=0.07). When comparing AxRT and ALND, a trend towards higher OS was observed the AxRT group (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.67-1.15), but the difference did not reach statistical significance (p=0.35, I2 = 0%). Additionally, no significant differences significance observed for DFS or AR (p=0.13 and p=0.73, respectively) between the AxRT and ALND groups.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that survival and recurrence rates are not inferior in patients with clinical node-negative early breast cancer and a positive sentinel lymph node who receive SLNB alone compared to those undergoing ALND or AxRT.

Efficacy and safety comparison between axillary lymph node dissection with no axillary surgery in patients with sentinel node-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to study the evidence on the efficacy and safety of omitting axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) for patients with clinically node-negative but sentinel lymph node (SLN)-positive breast cancer using all the available evidence.

METHODS

The Embase, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases were searched through February 25, 2023. Original trials that compared only the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) with ALND as the control group for patients with clinically node-negative but SLN-positive breast cancer were included. The primary outcomes were axillary recurrence rate, total recurrence rate, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Meta-analyses were performed to compare the odds ratio (OR) in rates and the hazard ratios (HR) in time-to-event outcomes between both interventions. Based on different study designs, tools in the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool were used for randomized trials and the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions to assess the risk of bias for each included article. Funnel plots and Egger's test were used for the publication's bias assessment.

RESULTS

In total, 30 reports from 26 studies were included in the systematic review (9 reports of RCTs, 21 reports of retrospective cohort studies). According to our analysis, omitting ALND in patients with clinically node-negative but SLN-positive breast cancer had a similar axillary recurrence rate (OR = 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.76-1.20), DFS (HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.89-1.16), and OS (HR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.92-1.03), but caused a significantly lower incidence of adverse events and benefited in locoregional recurrence rate (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.59-0.97) compared with ALND.

CONCLUSION

For patients with clinically node-negative but SLN-positive breast cancer (no matter the number of the positive SLN), this review showed that SLNB alone had a similar axillary recurrence rate, DFS, and OS, but caused a significantly lower incidence of adverse events and showed a benefit for the locoregional recurrence compared with ALND. An OS benefit was found in the Macro subset that used SLNB alone versus complete ALND. Therefore, omitting ALND is feasible in this setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD 42023397963.

Nanocarbon Tracer and Areola Injection Site Are Superior in the Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Procedure for Breast Cancer

Background. Axillary lymph node (ALN) staging is the most effective method to evaluate the condition of patients with breast cancer, their choice of treatment options, and prognosis. The sentinel lymph node (SLN) status assessment is the key to sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in patients with breast cancer. The choice of tracer and tracer injection sites affects SLNB. Objective. This study mainly analyzes the best tracer for SLNB and the best choice of tracer injection site. Methods. A total of 165 breast cancer patients who underwent SLNB were selected and injected with methylene blue or 99mTc-labeled sodium phytate or nanocarbon 20 min before biopsy. The number of SLNs detected by different tracers in different injection sites such as peritumoral tissue (PT) and subareolar area (SA) was counted, and the sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative prediction rates were recorded and compared. Results. The detection success rate, average detection number of SLNs, and detection accuracy of the nanocarbon tracer were higher than the other two. The detection sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative prediction rates of nanocarbon for SLNB were also higher than those of the other two tracers. When comparing the performance of tracers in different injection sites, it was found that the detection of three tracers injected in the SA was better than the injection in the PT. Conclusion. For women with early-stage breast cancer, nanocarbon can be used as the preferred tracer for SLNB to determine the status of the patient’s ALNs, and the areola area can be used as the best injection site.

Axillary dissection versus axillary observation for low risk, clinically node-negative invasive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

1. To systematically analyse studies comparing survival outcomes between axillary lymph-node dissection (ALND) and axilla observation (Obs), in women with low-risk, clinically node-negative breast cancer. 2. To consider results in the context of current axillary surgery de-escalation trials and studies.

Methods

9 eligible studies were identified, 6 RCTs and 3 non-randomized studies (4236 women in total). Outcomes assessed: overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The logged (ln) hazard ratio (HR) was calculated and used as the statistic of interest. Data was grouped by follow-up.

Results

Meta-analyses found no significant difference in OS at 5, 10 and 25-years follow-up (5-year ln HR = 0.08, 95% CI − 0.09, 0.25, 10-year ln HR =  0.33, 95% CI − 0.07, 0.72, 25-year ln HR = 0.00, 95% CI − 0.18, 0.19). ALND caused improvement in DFS at 5-years follow-up (ln HR = 0.16, 95% CI 0.03, 0.29), this was not demonstrated at 10 and 25-years follow-up (10-year ln HR = 0.07, 95% CI − 0.09, 0.23, 25-year ln HR = − 0.03, 95% CI − 0.21, 0.16). Studies supporting ALND for DFS at 5-years follow-up had greater relative chemotherapy use in the ALND cohort.

Conclusion

ALND does not cause a significant improvement in OS in women with clinically node-negative breast cancer. ALND may improve DFS in the short term by tailoring a proportion of patients towards chemotherapy. Our evidence suggests that when the administration of systemic therapy is balanced between the two arms, axillary de-escalation studies will likely find no difference in OS or DFS.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12282-021-01273-6.

Does the number of removed axillary lymphnodes in high risk breast cancer patients influence the survival?

Background

The decision making process for axillary dissection has changed in recent years for patients with early breast cancer and positive sentinel lymph nodes (LN). The question now arises, what is the optimal surgical treatment for patients with positive axillary LN (pN+). This article tries to answer the following questions:

Is there a survival benefit for breast cancer patients with 3 or more positive LN (pN3+) and with more than 10 removed LN?

Is there a survival benefit for high risk breast cancer patients (triple negative or Her2 + breast cancer) and with 3 or more positive LN (pN3+) with more than 10 removed LN?

In pN + patients is the prognostic value of the lymph node ratio (LNR) of pN+/pN removed impaired if 10 or less LN are removed?

Methods

A retrospective database analysis of the multi center cohort database BRENDA (breast cancer under evidence based guidelines) with data from 9625 patients from 17 breast centers was carried out. Guideline adherence was defined by the 2008 German National consensus guidelines.

Results

2992 out of 9625 patients had histological confirmed positive lymph nodes. The most important factors for survival were intrinsic sub types, tumor size and guideline adherent chemo- and hormonal treatment (and age at diagnosis for overall survival (OAS)). Uni-and multivariable analyses for recurrence free survival (RFS) and OAS showed no significant survival benefit when removing more than 10 lymph nodes even for high-risk patients. The mean and median of LNR were significantly higher in the pN+ patients with ≤10 excised LN compared to patients with > 10 excised LN. LNR was in both, uni-and multivariable, analysis a highly significant prognostic factor for RFS and OAS in both subgroups of pN + patients with less respective more than 10 excised LN. Multivariable COX regression analysis was adjusted by age, tumor size, intrinsic sub types and guideline adherent adjuvant systemic therapy.

Conclusion

The removal of more than 10 LN did not result in a significant survival benefit even in high risk pN + breast cancer patients.

Seroma in breast surgery: all the surgeons fault?

BACKGROUND

Despite a trend for less radical surgical approaches in breast cancer due to better understanding of tumour biology and new treatment options such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and intra-operative radiotherapy (IORT), seroma production remains one of the main surgical side effects that can result in prolonged recovery, delay of radiotherapy and patient discomfort. The aim of this study is to provide an update on risk factors for seroma production after breast cancer surgery considering the latest treatment options.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of seroma production in primary breast cancer patients treated between 01.01.2010 and 31.12.2014 at the Breast Cancer Centre, University Hospital Ulm, was performed. Patients with previous breast/axillary surgery or more than one intervention were excluded. Seroma formation was measured using wound drains placed in breast and axilla.

RESULTS

In total, 581 patients met the inclusion criteria. Median age at diagnosis was 60 years, and median BMI 25.6 kg/m². 60 (10.3%) patients had a mastectomy, 175 (30.1%) patients received IORT, and 72 (12.4%) patients received NAC. Median amount of seroma production was 82.5 ml (range 0-3012.5 ml). Multivariate analysis revealed that most of the observed variation in seroma production was due to type of surgery (mastectomy vs. breast conserving), length of surgery and number of removed lymph nodes. Both NAC and IORT explained a significant but very small amount of the observed variation in seroma production.

CONCLUSION

The most important factors for seroma production are extent and duration of breast surgery.

Treatment of the axila in breast cancer surgery: Systematic review of its impact on survival

Sentinel lymph node biopsy and ACOSOG-Z0011 criteria have modified axillary treatment in breast cancer surgery. We performed a systematic review of studies assessing the impact of axillary treatment on survival. The search showed 6891 potentially eligible items. Of them, 23 clinical trials and 12 meta-analyses published between 1980 and 2017 met the study criteria. The review revealed that axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) can be omitted in patients pN0 and pN1mic, without compromising survival. In patients pN1 it is proposed not to treat the axilla or replace ALND for axillary radiotherapy. The main limitations of this study are the inclusion of old tests that do not use therapeutic targets and lack of risk categorization of relapse. In conclusion, axillary treatment can be avoided in patients without metastatic involvement or micrometastases in the sentinel lymph node. However, there is no evidence to make a recommendation of axillary treatment in N1 patients, so individualized analysis of patient risk factors is needed.

Imaging and pathology features to predict axillary tumor load in breast cancer

AIM

We investigated if imaging and pathology features could help to identify a high axillary tumor burden (ATB) in breast cancer patients, in order to individualize decisions on axillary lymph node (ALN) dissection (ALND).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients primarily treated with surgery in our unit between 2011 and 2014. We divided the patients in two groups: low ATB (LATB) if ≤ 2 ALN were infiltrated and high ATB (HATB) if > 2 ALN were infiltrated.

RESULTS

Data of 105 patients was included in the study. Axillary ultrasound (AUS) features associated with HATB were any sign of ALN infiltration (76 vs 24%, P = 0.027) and > 2 suspicious ALNs (73% vs 27%, P = 0.018); however, when AUS revealed ≤ 2 suspicious ALNs, 39% of these patients had HATB. Any sign of ALN infiltration on magnetic resonance imaging was associated with HATB (48% vs 52%, P = 0.031). Positive preoperative ALN cytology or biopsy was associated with HATB (53% vs 47%, P = 0.008), while p53 positivity (80% vs 20%) and high histological grade (68% vs. 32%) correlated with LATB (P = 0.05 and P = 0.02, respectively). In multivariate analysis, only positive preoperative ALN cytology or biopsy was associated with HATB (P = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

AUS was useful for detecting HATB but was not as effective in patients with LATB. Proving axillary infiltration with AUS-directed cytology or biopsy is the most effective method to predict HATB.

Exploiting lymphatic vessels for immunomodulation: Rationale, opportunities, and challenges

Lymphatic vessels are the primary route of communication from peripheral tissues to the immune system; as such, they represent an important component of local immunity. In addition to their transport functions, new immunomodulatory roles for lymphatic vessels and lymphatic endothelial cells have come to light in recent years, demonstrating that lymphatic vessels help shape immune responses in a variety of ways: promoting tolerance to self-antigens, archiving antigen for later presentation, dampening effector immune responses, and resolving inflammation, among others. In addition to these new biological insights, the growing field of immunoengineering has begun to explore therapeutic approaches to utilize or exploit the lymphatic system for immunotherapy.