Gobardhan P D, Elias S G, Madsen E V E, Bongers V, Ruitenberg H J M, Perre C I, van Dalen T
Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ann Oncol. 2009 Jan;20(1):41-8. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdn535. Epub 2008 Jul 24.
The prognostic meaning and thus indication for adjuvant therapy of lymphogenic micrometastases in breast cancer patients is still under debate.
From 1999 to 2007, 703 patients with (c)T(1-2)N(0) breast cancer underwent surgery including sentinel lymph node biopsy. Examination of sentinel lymph nodes consisted of hematoxylin and eosin and immunohistochemistry staining following serial sectioning of the sentinel node. Patients were divided into four groups: (p)N(0) (n=423), (p)N(1micro) (n=81), (p)N(1a) (n=130) and (p)N(>or=1b) (n=69). Median follow-up was 40 months.
At the end of follow-up, 53 patients had died and 64 had recurrent disease. Compared with (p)N(0) and following adjustment for possible confounders, including adjuvant systemic treatment, overall survival was not significantly different for (p)N(1micro) while significantly worse for (p)N(1a) and (p)N(>or=1b) {hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.59 [0.14-2.58], 4.31 [1.85-10.01], 10.66 [4.04-28.14], respectively}. Likewise, disease-free survival was not significantly different for (p)N(1micro) and worse for (p)N(1a) and (p)N(>or=1b) (HR [95% CI]: 1.43 [0.67-3.02], 2.79 [1.37-5.66], 7.13 [3.27-15.54], respectively). Distant metastases were more commonly observed in the (p)N(1micro) than in the (p)N(0) group, but still not as common as in the (p)N(1a) or (p)N(>or=1b) group (HR [95% CI]: 4.85 [1.79-13.18], 10.34 [3.82-28.00], 23.25 [7.88-68.56], respectively).
Although the risk of distant metastases was higher in patients in the (p)N(1micro) than in the (p)N(0) group, no statistically significant differences were observed in overall or disease-free survival between (p)N(0) and (p)N(1micro). Micrometastatic lymph node involvement in itself should not be an indication for adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients.
乳腺癌患者中淋巴源性微转移的预后意义以及辅助治疗的指征仍存在争议。
1999年至2007年,703例(c)T(1 - 2)N(0)乳腺癌患者接受了包括前哨淋巴结活检在内的手术。前哨淋巴结检查包括苏木精和伊红染色以及在前哨淋巴结连续切片后进行免疫组化染色。患者被分为四组:(p)N(0)(n = 423)、(p)N(1微转移)(n = 81)、(p)N(1a)(n = 130)和(p)N(≥1b)(n = 69)。中位随访时间为40个月。
随访结束时,53例患者死亡,64例出现疾病复发。与(p)N(0)组相比,并在对包括辅助全身治疗等可能的混杂因素进行调整后,(p)N(1微转移)组的总生存率无显著差异,而(p)N(1a)组和(p)N(≥1b)组的总生存率显著更差{风险比(HR)[95%置信区间(CI)]:分别为0.59 [0.14 - 2.58]、4.31 [1.85 - 10.01]、10.66 [4.04 - 28.14]}。同样,(p)N(1微转移)组的无病生存率无显著差异,(p)N(1a)组和(p)N(≥1b)组的无病生存率更差(HR [95% CI]:分别为1.43 [0.67 - 3.02]、2.79 [1.37 - 5.66]、7.13 [3.27 - 15.54])。远处转移在(p)N(1微转移)组比在(p)N(0)组更常见,但仍不如在(p)N(1a)组或(p)N(≥1b)组常见(HR [95% CI]:分别为4.85 [1.79 - 13.18]、10.34 [3.82 - 28.00]、23.25 [7.88 - 68.56])。
尽管(p)N(1微转移)组患者远处转移的风险高于(p)N(0)组,但(p)N(0)组和(p)N(1微转移)组之间在总生存或无病生存方面未观察到统计学上的显著差异。微转移淋巴结受累本身不应作为乳腺癌患者辅助化疗的指征。