Size of Extranodal Extension in the Sentinel Lymph Node as a Predictor of Prognosis in Early-Stage Breast Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The presence of extranodal extension (ENE) in sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) can predict non-SLN metastases in breast cancer (BC) patients; however, the prognostic relevance of its extent remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to examine the predictive role of ENE in SLNs measured by its widest dimension (WD), highest dimension (HD), and the WD/HD ratio for non-SLN involvement, overall, and disease-free survival (OS, DFS) in cT1-2N0 BC patients with positive SLNs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 511 women with cT1-2N0 BC and positive SLNs undergoing axillary lymph node dissection were retrospectively enrolled. The associations of ENE's WD, HD, and WD/HD ratio with non-SLN metastases, 5-year OS, and DFS were established through a multivariable modeling approach.

RESULTS

SLNs were ENE-positive in 149 (29.16%) participants, and 133 (26.03%) had non-SLN metastases. During the median 60 (16-60)-month follow-up, 69 (13.50%) patients experienced recurrences, and 62 (12.13%) died. The numbers of SLNs, non-SLNs, and total axillary LNs involved differed between the ENE-negative and ENE-positive groups, as well as between the WD/HD ≤ 1.2 and WD/HD > 1.2 subgroups (all P-values were < .001). Multivariable analyses showed significant associations of the WD/HD ratio > 1.2 with non-SLN involvement, OS, and DFS (P-values were .003, < .001, and .005, respectively).

DISCUSSION

Despite no predictive value of ENE's WD and HD, the WD/HD ratio > 1.2 was an independent predictor of non-SLN involvement, mortality, and recurrence. ENE's WD/HD ratio could be a valuable indicator for cT1-2N0 BC individuals with positive SLNs for whom further axillary treatment may be beneficial.

Extranodal extension, an international survey on its evaluation and reporting in breast cancer patients

Lymph node metastasis is the most important prognostic factor for breast cancer patients. In addition to the number of nodes involved and the largest metastatic focus, extranodal extension (ENE) is also used to subclassify breast cancer patients into different risk groups. More recently, pathologists are required to report the size/extent of ENE per the new CAP guideline, as it seems to be associated with more axillary nodal burden and/or a worse prognosis. Although the definition of ENE is largely understood and agreed upon among pathologists around the world, evaluation and reporting for the size of ENE are not. To understand current practice, we conducted an international survey among pathologists who are interested in breast pathology. A total of 70 pathologists responded. The results showed that (1) 98% of the participants reported the presence or absence of ENE and 61% also reported the size of ENE in millimeter (mm). (2) There was no uniform method of measuring the size of ENE; 47% measured the largest dimension regardless of orientation, while 30% measured the largest perpendicular distance from the capsule. (3) The most common factors affecting the accuracy in diagnosis of ENE are the presence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI), lack of capsule integrity, and the presence of fatty hilar or fatty replacement of a lymph node. (4) 71% felt that the H&E stain is adequate to evaluate ENE, deeper levels and IHC analysis for vascular and cytokeratin markers can be helpful if needed. (5) 75% agreed that there is an urgent need to standardize the measurement and reporting for ENE. Our survey highlights the variation in ENE evaluation and the need for its standardization in breast cancer patients with axillary node metastasis.

Update on sentinel node pathology in breast cancer

Pathologic examination of the sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) in patients with breast cancer has been impacted by the publication of practicing changing trials over the last decade. With evidence from the ACOSOG Z0011 trial to suggest that there is no significant benefit to axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in early-stage breast cancer patients with up to 2 positive SLNs, the rate of ALND, and in turn, intraoperative evaluation of SLNs has significantly decreased. It is of limited clinical significance to pursue multiple levels and cytokeratin immunohistochemistry to detect occult small metastases, such as isolated tumor cells and micrometastases, in this setting. Patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy, who represent a population with more extensive disease and aggressive tumor biology, were not included in Z0011 and similar trials, and thus, the evidence cannot be extrapolated to them. Recent trials have supported the safety and accuracy of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in these patients when clinically node negative at the time of surgery. ALND remains the standard of care for any amount of residual disease in the SLNs and intraoperative evaluation of SLNs is still of value for real time surgical decision making. Given the potential prognostic significance of residual small metastases in treated lymph nodes, as well as the decreased false negative rate with the use of cytokeratin immunohistochemistry (IHC), it may be reasonable to maintain a low threshold for the use of cytokeratin IHC in post-neoadjuvant cases. Further recommendations for patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy await outcomes data from ongoing clinical trials. This review will provide an evidence-based discussion of best practices in SLN evaluation.

How Do Pathologists in Academic Institutions Across the United States and Canada Evaluate Sentinel Lymph Nodes in Breast Cancer? A Practice Survey

OBJECTIVES

There are little data on how changes in the clinical management of axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer have influenced pathologist evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes.

METHODS

A 14-question survey was sent to Canadian and US breast pathologists at academic institutions (AIs).

RESULTS

Pathologists from 23 AIs responded. Intraoperative evaluation (IOE) is performed for selected cases in 9 AIs, for almost all in 10, and not performed in 4. Thirteen use frozen sections (FSs) alone. During IOE, perinodal fat is completely trimmed in 8, not trimmed in 9, and variable in 2. For FS, in 12 the entire node is submitted at 2-mm intervals. Preferred plane of sectioning is parallel to the long axis in 8 and perpendicular in 12. In 11, a single H&E slide is obtained, whereas 12 opt for multiple levels. In 11, cytokeratin is obtained if necessary, and immunostains are routine in 10. Thirteen consider tumor cells in pericapsular lymphatics as lymphovascular invasion (LVI), and 10 consider it isolated tumor cells (ITCs).

CONCLUSIONS

There is dichotomy in practice with near-equal support for routine vs case-by-case multilevel/immunostain evaluation, perpendicular vs parallel sectioning, complete vs incomplete fat removal, and tumor in pericapsular lymphatics as LVI vs ITCs.

Clinical significance of extranodal extension in sentinel lymph node positive breast cancer

The precise stage of lymph node (LN) metastasis is a strong prognostic factor in breast cancers, and sentinel lymph node (SLN) is the first station of nodal metastasis. A number of patients have extranodal extension (ENE) in SLN, whereas the clinical values of ENE in SLN in breast cancers are still in exploration. The aim of our study was to evaluate the predictive and prognostic values of ENE in SLN in breast cancers, and to investigate the feasibility of ENE to predict non-SLN metastasis, nodal burden, disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in clinical practice. 266 cases of primary invasive breast cancer (cT1-2N0 breast cancer) underwent SLN biopsy and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) between 2008 and 2015 were extracted from the pathology database of Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center. ENE in SLN was defined as extension of neoplastic cells through the lymph-nodal capsule into the peri-nodal adipose tissue, and was classified as no larger than 2 mm and larger than 2 mm group. The associations between ENE and clinicopathological features, non-SLN metastasis, nodal burden, DFS, and OS were analyzed. In the 266 patients with involved SLN, 100(37.6%) were positive for ENE in SLN. 67 (25.2%) cases had ENE no larger than 2 mm in diameter, and 33(12.4%) had ENE larger than 2 mm. Among the clinicopathological characteristics, the presence of ENE in SLN was associated with higher pT and pN stages, PR status, lympho-vascular invasion. Logistic regression analysis indicated that patients with ENE in SLN had higher rate of non-SLN metastasis (OR4.80, 95% CI 2.47–9.34, P < 0.001). Meanwhile, in patients with SLN micrometastasis or 1–2 SLNs involvement, ENE positive patients had higher rate of non-SLN metastasis, comparing with ENE negative patients (P < 0.001, P = 0.004 respectively). The presence of ENE in SLN was correlated with nodal burden, including the pattern and number of involved SLN (P < 0.001, P < 0.001 respectively), the number of involved non-SLN and total positive LNs (P < 0.001, P < 0.001 respectively). Patients with ENE had significantly higher frequency of pN2 disease (P < 0.001). For the disease recurrence and survival status, Cox regression analysis showed that patients with ENE in SLN had significantly reduced DFS (HR 3.05, 95%CI 1.13–10.48, P = 0.008) and OS (HR 3.34, 95%CI 0.74–14.52, P = 0.092) in multivariate analysis. Kaplan–Meier curves and log-rank test showed that patients with ENE in SLN had lower DFS and OS (for DFS: P < 0.001; and for OS: P < 0.001 respectively). Whereas no significant difference was found in nodal burden between ENE ≤ 2 mm and > 2 mm groups, except the number of SLN metastasis was higher in patients with ENE > 2 mm. Cox regression analysis, Kaplan–Meier curves and log-rank test indicated that the size of ENE was not an independent factor of DFS and OS. Our study indicated that ENE in SLN was a predictor for non-SLN metastasis, nodal burden and prognosis in breast cancers. Patients with ENE in SLN had a higher rate of non-SLN metastasis, higher frequency of pN2 disease, and poorer prognosis. Patients with ENE in SLN may benefit from additional ALND, even in SLN micrometastasis or 1–2 SLNs involvement patients. The presence of ENE in SLN should be evaluated in clinical practice. Size of ENE which was classified by a 2 mm cutoff value had no significant predictive and prognostic values in this study. The cutoff values of ENE in SLN need further investigation.

Predictors of Locoregional Recurrence After Failure to Achieve Pathologic Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated factors predictive of locoregional recurrence (LRR) in women with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy who do not experience pathologic complete response (pCR).

METHODS

This is a single-institution retrospective review of women with TNBC treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy in 2000 through 2013. LRR was estimated between patients with and without pCR using the Kaplan-Meier method. Patient-, tumor-, and treatment-specific factors in patients without pCR were analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards method to evaluate factors predictive of LRR. Log-rank statistics were then used to compare LRR among these risk factors.

RESULTS

A total of 153 patients with a median follow-up of 48.6 months were included. The 4-year overall survival and LRR were 70% and 15%, respectively, and the 4-year LRR in patients with pCR was 0% versus 22.0% in those without (P<.001). In patients without pCR, lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI; hazard ratio, 3.92; 95% CI, 1.64-9.38; P=.002) and extranodal extension (ENE; hazard ratio, 3.32; 95% CI, 1.35-8.15; P=.009) were significant predictors of LRR in multivariable analysis. In these patients, the 4-year LRR with LVSI was 39.8% versus 15.0% without (P<.001). Similarly, the 4-year LRR was 48.1% with ENE versus 16.1% without (P=.002). In patients without pCR, the presence of both LVSI and ENE were associated with an even further increased risk of LRR compared with patients with either LVSI or ENE alone and those with neither LVSI nor ENE in the residual tumor (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients without pCR, the presence of LVSI and ENE increases the risk of LRR in TNBC. The risk of LRR is compounded when both LVSI and ENE are present in the same patient. Future clinical trials are warranted to lower the risk of LRR in these high-risk patients.

Extranodal extension is a strong prognosticator in HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively examine the prognostic significance of extranodal extension (ENE) in human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPV-positive OPSCC).

METHODS

Retrospective cohort of cases diagnosed with HPV-positive OPSCC from 2010 to 2015 in the National Cancer Database. Inclusion of all OPSCC HPV-positive cases with appropriate International Classification of Diseases-0-3 codes that received surgery with a neck dissection. Univariate and multivariable analyses were conducted. Hazard ratios (HR) for the independent effects of ENE and N stage on overall survival were estimated by Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

Cases that were ENE-negative had the highest 5-year survival (92.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 90.5%-94.7%). ENE-positive cases had the lowest 5-year survival (84.0%; 95% CI: 80.7%-87.4%). After adjusting for confounding variables, ENE-positivity was associated with almost twice the hazard of death (HR = 1.90; 95% CI: 1.35-2.67) compared to ENE-negative cases. Nodal (N) category 1, ENE-positive status was associated with an increased risk of death (HR = 1.88; 95% CI: 1.26-2.80) compared with N1, ENE-negative status. Compared to N1/ENE-negative cases, N2/ENE-positive cases had the poorest survival (HR: 2.93; 95% CI: 1.94-4.43). Both microscopic and macroscopic ENE were associated with worse outcomes compared to node-positive/ENE-negative status.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition staging system provides a much-improved framework to develop and discuss treatment plans for HPV-positive OPSCC. We feel that careful consideration should be given to the importance of ENE in patients with HPV-positive OPSCC.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 130:939-945, 2020.

Lymphovascular invasion and extranodal tumour extension are risk indicators of breast cancer related lymphoedema: an observational retrospective study with long-term follow-up

Background

Breast cancer related lymphoedema (BCRL) occurs in a substantial proportion of breast cancer survivors and is a major contributor to patients’ disability. Regrettably, there are no validated predictive biomarkers, diagnostic tools, and strong evidence-supported therapeutic strategies for BCRL. Here, we provide an integrative characterization of a large series of women with node-positive breast cancers and identify new bona fide predictors of BCRL occurrence.

Methods

Three hundred thirty-two cases of surgically-treated node-positive breast cancers were retrospectively collected (2–10.2 years of follow-up). Among them, 62 patients developed BCRL. To identify demographic and clinicopathologic features related to BCRL, Fisher’s exact test or Chi-squared test were carried out for categorical variables; the Wilcoxon rank-sum was employed for continuous variables. Factors associated with BCRL occurrence were assessed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model.

Results

En-bloc dissection of the axillary lymph nodes but not the type of breast surgery impacted on BCRL development. Most of BCRL patients had a Luminal A-like neoplasm. The median number of lymph nodes involved by metastatic deposits was significantly higher in BCRL compared to the control group (p = 0.04). Both peritumoral lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and extranodal extension (ENE) of the metastasis had a negative impact on BCRL-free survival (p = 0.01). Specifically, patients with LVI and left side localization harboured 4-fold higher risk of developing BCRL, while right axillary nodes metastases with ENE increased the probability of BCRL compared to ENE-negative patients.

Conclusions

Assessment of LVI and ENE should be integrated with clinical and surgical data to improve BCRL risk stratification.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4851-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Is completion axillary lymph node dissection necessary in patients who are underrepresented in the ACOSOG Z0011 trial?

PURPOSE

The American College of Surgeons Oncology Group trial Z0011 demonstrated that axillary node dissection (ALND) can be omitted in patients managed with breast conserving surgery and 1 to 2 positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) without adverse effects on locoregional recurrence or disease-free survival (DFS). We investigated patients with breast cancer for whom clinicopathologic features were underrepresented in the Z0011 trial and analyzed radiation therapy treatment patterns and clinical outcomes.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We retrospectively reviewed records of patients who underwent a lumpectomy and SLN biopsy with positive SLNs but not an ALND and completed adjuvant radiation therapy. Eligible patients had T3 tumors, >2 positive SLNs, invasive lobular carcinoma, estrogen receptor negative status, extranodal extension, Nottingham Grade 3, or were age <50 years.

RESULTS

We identified 105 women treated between July 2011 and July 2016 with a median follow-up time of 48.5 months (Range, 11-83 months). There were 40 women with an extranodal extension (38.9%) and 42 women with grade 3 disease (40.0%). Nineteen patients received whole breast irradiation alone (18.1%) and 86 patients were treated with modified tangent fields including the superior axilla level I/II (81.9%). Thirty-three patients (31.4%) also received a 3rd supraclavicular, nodal-directed field. Among the 86 patients who received axillary nodal irradiation, nodal volume contouring was performed in 77 patients (89.5%). Fifty-one patients (48.6%) also received adjuvant chemotherapy. The overall rates of 4-year DFS and locoregional control (LRC) were 94.3% and 98.1%, respectively. Off all patients, 1 patient experienced an internal mammary nodal recurrence, another patient a contralateral breast tumor, and two patients distant metastases. There were no axillary or ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective analysis of women who were underrepresented or excluded from the Z11 trial and underwent a lumpectomy and SLN biopsy with positive SLNs demonstrated comparable rates of LRC and DFS. The high rates of LRC and DFS suggest that completion ALND may be safely omitted in this patient population but larger data sets and longer follow-up times are needed to confirm this finding.

Contemporary Evaluation of Breast Lymph Nodes in Anatomic Pathology

OBJECTIVES

Management of the axilla in breast cancer patients has evolved considerably since the introduction of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy in the 1990s. Several new clinical and technological developments in the last decade warrant special consideration due to their impact on pathology practice.

METHODS

This review covers the SLN biopsy procedure, issues in the histopathologic and molecular diagnosis of the SLN, and most importantly, evidence from recent practice-changing clinical trials.

RESULTS

ACOSOG Z0011, IBCSG 23-01, and AMAROS trials have shown that early-stage breast cancer patients who have limited metastatic involvement of the SLNs do not benefit from completion axillary dissections.

CONCLUSIONS

It is not necessary for pathologists to search for all small metastases to predict non-SLN involvement, regional recurrence, or death due to disease. Processing should be designed with the goal of detecting macrometastases. Multiple levels, routine immunohistochemistry, and molecular testing are not recommended.

A quantitative analysis of tumour characteristics in breast cancer patients with extranodal extension in non-sentinel nodes

BACKGROUND

The presence of extranodal extension (ENE) is well documented as a predictor of non-sentinel lymph node (NSLN) metastasis. The ACOSOG Z0011 trial (2011) concluded that patients who satisfy criteria including the absence of sentinel lymph node (SLN) ENE can forgo axillary clearance (AC). Currently there are no studies analysing the rate of ENE in NSLN metastasis in which the sentinel node was positive but had no ENE. Determining this incidence will help determine if current paradigms are resulting in residual ENE in NSLN metastasis by forgoing AC based on the Z0011 trial..

METHODS

This study determined incidence of ENE at NSLN metastasis in patients with a positive SLN biopsy without ENE in 162 symptomatic breast cancer patients who underwent AC between 2009 and 2014 at Cork University Hospital Breast Cancer Service, a teaching hospital of University College Cork.

RESULTS

Of 965 sentinel node biopsies performed 251 were identified as SLN positive, 162 (64.5%) underwent further AC. Of the 162 patients, 56.8% (92/162) were positive for ENE at SLN, of these 57.6% (53/92) had NSLN metastasis versus 17.1% (12/70) in the ENE-negative group (χ² test; P < 0.001). On adjusted analysis, ENE at the SLN was a significant predictor of NSLN metastasis (odds ratio [OR] 8.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.26-22.86; P < 0.001). The incidence of NSLN-ENE in patients without SLN-ENE was 1/70 (1.4%) compared with 33.7% (31/92) in patients who had ENE at the SLN (χ² test; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

ENE at the SLN is an independent predictor of NSLN involvement; its absence significantly reduces the likelihood of ENE in NSLN metastasis..

Sentinel Lymph Nodes for Breast Carcinoma: A Paradigm Shift

CONTEXT

-Sentinel lymph node biopsy has been established as the new standard of care for axillary staging in most patients with invasive breast carcinoma. Historically, all patients with a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy result underwent axillary lymph node dissection. Recent trials show that axillary lymph node dissection can be safely omitted in women with clinically node negative, T1 or T2 invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery and whole-breast radiotherapy. This change in practice also has implications on the pathologic examination and reporting of sentinel lymph nodes.

OBJECTIVE

-To review recent clinical and pathologic studies of sentinel lymph nodes and explore how these findings influence the pathologic evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes.

DATA SOURCES

-Sources were published articles from peer-reviewed journals in PubMed (US National Library of Medicine) and published guidelines from the American Joint Committee on Cancer, the Union for International Cancer Control, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

CONCLUSIONS

-The main goal of sentinel lymph node examination should be to detect all macrometastases (>2 mm). Grossly sectioning sentinel lymph nodes at 2-mm intervals and evaluation of one hematoxylin-eosin-stained section from each block is the preferred method of pathologic evaluation. Axillary lymph node dissection can be safely omitted in clinically node-negative patients with negative sentinel lymph nodes, as well as in a selected group of patients with limited sentinel lymph node involvement. The pathologic features of the primary carcinoma and its sentinel lymph node metastases contribute to estimate the extent of non-sentinel lymph node involvement. This information is important to decide on further axillary treatment.

Extra-nodal extension is a significant prognostic factor in lymph node positive breast cancer

Presence of lymph node (LN) metastasis is a strong prognostic factor in breast cancer, whereas the importance of extra-nodal extension and other nodal tumor features have not yet been fully recognized. Here, we examined microscopic features of lymph node metastases and their prognostic value in a population-based cohort of node positive breast cancer (n = 218), as part of the prospective Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program NBCSP (1996–2009). Sections were reviewed for the largest metastatic tumor diameter (TD-MET), nodal afferent and efferent vascular invasion (AVI and EVI), extra-nodal extension (ENE), number of ENE foci, as well as circumferential (CD-ENE) and perpendicular (PD-ENE) diameter of extra-nodal growth. Number of positive lymph nodes, EVI, and PD-ENE were significantly increased with larger primary tumor (PT) diameter. Univariate survival analysis showed that several features of nodal metastases were associated with disease-free (DFS) or breast cancer specific survival (BCSS). Multivariate analysis demonstrated an independent prognostic value of PD-ENE (with 3 mm as cut-off value) in predicting DFS and BCSS, along with number of positive nodes and histologic grade of the primary tumor (for DFS: P = 0.01, P = 0.02, P = 0.01, respectively; for BCSS: P = 0.02, P = 0.008, P = 0.02, respectively). To conclude, the extent of ENE by its perpendicular diameter was independently prognostic and should be considered in line with nodal tumor burden in treatment decisions of node positive breast cancer.

Factors associated with regional recurrence after lymph node dissection for penile squamous cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors associated with regional recurrence after lymph node dissection (LND) for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) to determine which patients might benefit from adjuvant therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Men who underwent LND for penile SCC from 1977 to 2014 were identified from an institutional database. Kaplan-Meier curves estimated recurrence-free survival (RFS) calculated from the date of LND. Cox regression models evaluated the association between RFS and patient and tumour characteristics.

RESULTS

In all, 182 men who underwent LND for penile SCC were identified. The median patient age was 62 years and the median follow-up was 4.2 years. After LND 34 men had regional recurrence, of which 24 developed isolated regional recurrences without distant metastasis. The median RFS was 5.7 months, and the 3-year RFS rate was 70%. On univariate analysis, lymphovascular invasion, clinical and pathological nodal stage, pathological inguinal laterality, pelvic nodal involvement, lymph node density ≥5.2%, ≥3 pathologically involved lymph nodes, and extranodal extension (ENE) were associated with worse RFS (all P < 0.05). On multivariate analysis, clinical N3 disease [adjusted hazard ratio (AHR)] 3.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.68-7.45; P = 0.001), ≥3 pathologically involved lymph nodes (AHR 3.78, 95% CI 2.12-6.65; P < 0.001), and ENE (AHR 3.32, 95% CI 1.93-5.76; P < 0.001) were associated with worse RFS. The 3-year RFS for patients with cN0, cN1, cN2, and cN3 disease was 91.7%, 64.5%, 54.7%, and 38.3%, respectively. For men with ≥3 involved nodes, the 3-year RFS was 17% vs 82.4% in men with <3 involved nodes. The 3-year RFS was 29.7% in men with ENE and 85.7% in men without ENE.

CONCLUSION

The presence of clinical N3 disease, ≥3 pathologically involved lymph nodes, and ENE was associated with worse RFS. As regional recurrence portends a dismal prognosis with few salvage options, adjuvant therapies should be developed for men with the aforementioned adverse factors.