This week's Journal of Clinical Oncology (October 1, 2009) has an article by Hansen et al (abstract) from the John Wayne Cancer Institute reporting a prospective study of invasive breast cancer patients with micrometastases in sentinel lymph node biopsies and its impact on survival.
They studied 790 patients with sentinel lymph nodes categorized as pN0(i-), pN0(i+), pN1mi, or pN1 and compared disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Median follow-up was 72.5 months.
The results showed that pNO(i+) and pN1mi patients had a similar 8-year DFS and OS compared with pN0(i-) patients. As expected, pN1 patients had significantly shorter 8-year DFS and OS compared with the other 3 groups. Multivariate analysis showed macrometastases, tumor size and histologic type were predictive of shorter DFS, while OS was predicted by macrometastases, patient age, and ER status.
This is a well-designed, prospective study and worth taking note and the accompanying editorial by Dr. Thomas Julian is also notable.
These findings are in contrast to a recently published NEJM article by a Dutch group from Maastricht University Medical Center (de Boer et al. NEJM 2009 Aug 13: 353-363). This study was also prospective but studied non-sentinel pN0(i+) and pN1mi regional LN involvement in early-stage breast cancer patients. It compared DFS in pNo(i+) and pN1mi patients who had not received adjuvant therapy with those pNo(i+) and pN1mi patients who did receive adjuvant therapy and with node-negative (pN0) patients. The authors found that the pN0(i+)/N1mi, no adjuvant therapy group had a shorter 5-year DFS compared with those who did received adjuvant therapy. This same Dutch group, furthermore, published a "scary" (to me!) meta-analysis study in JNCI in November 2008 examining the association of isolated tumor cells in sentinel LN with non-sentinel LN metastases. The study included 29 studies and found an overall risk of non-sentinel lymph node metastases when there was ITCs in the sentinel node of 12.3% (95% C.I. 9.5% to 15.7%)--roughly one-and-a-half to two times the published false negative rate for SLN biopsy. Here's the scary part: nearly two-thirds (64%) of patients with ITCs in their SLN also had non-sentinel LN macrometastases!
It seems that when the pN0(+) situation arises in my practice, there are multiple phone calls questioning the result, its meaning, and what to do next. First, the designation of pN0(+) whether positive by H&E or IHC is confusing (at best) and basically, er, wrong--as it seems pathologically, clinically, and biologically. Yet, it also appears that each patient's treatment plan must be evaluated individually. The current evidence supports completion axillary dissection in these patients, although perhaps this just kicks the can down the street if those nodes are negative. Two ongoing studies which have completed accrual, NSABP B-32 (retrospective IHC analysis) and ACOSOG Z0010 (prospective study), should help clarify this problem.