Survival benefit with radiation therapy in node-positive breast carcinoma patients.

Mia Voordeckers, Vincent Vinh-Hung, Jan Lamote, Annette Bretz, Guy Storme
Author Information
  1. Mia Voordeckers: Department of Radiotherapy, Oncologic Center UZ Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. mia.voordeckers@uzbrussel.be

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Postoperative radiation therapy (RT) has been the subject of discussion, especially in patients with one to three positive lymph nodes (< or = 3 pN+) in the axillary dissection. The authors investigated whether postoperative RT provides a survival benefit for pT1-2 pN+ breast cancer patients.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients included were selected from the SEER database (NCI--Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results, release 2000; n = 24,410) and the UZ Brussel database (1984-2002; n = 1,011) according to the following criteria: women aged 25-95, no previous cancer, unilateral pT1-pT2 breast tumors, total mastectomy (ME) or breast-conserving surgery (BCS), postoperative RT, and an axillary dissection showing at least one pathologic lymph node.
RESULTS: The overall survival (OS) of patients in the SEER and UZ Brussel databases who received postoperative RT was identical. However, patients in the SEER database who did not receive RT had a significantly worse outcome (p < 0.0001). After ME or BCS, all patients (SEER and UZ Brussel) who had > or = 4 pN+ and received RT had comparable outcomes after 15 years. The 15-year OS in the subgroup with ME and < or = 3 pN+ nodes was 57.0% and 46.6% (p = 0.0004) with RT (UZ Brussel) and without RT (SEER), respectively. For BCS and < or = 3 pN+, the same significant difference in OS at 15 years was seen: 63.8% after RT (UZ Brussel) and 60.4% without RT (SEER; p = 0.0029).
CONCLUSION: RT provides a survival benefit in patients with < or = 3 or > or = 4 pN+; the indication for postoperative RT should therefore be adapted in future consensus meetings.

References

  1. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Jun;121(6):1886-1892 [PMID: 18520873]
  2. Strahlenther Onkol. 2000 Oct;176(10):443-7 [PMID: 11068587]
  3. Gynakol Geburtshilfliche Rundsch. 2008;48(2):68-75 [PMID: 18431046]
  4. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001 Jun;107(7):1694-701 [PMID: 11391187]
  5. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59(10):1017-24 [PMID: 16996422]
  6. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004 Apr 1;113(4):1153-60 [PMID: 15083015]
  7. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002 Sep 15;110(4):1080-3 [PMID: 12198421]
  8. Strahlenther Onkol. 2008 Feb;184(2):86-92 [PMID: 18259700]
  9. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Mar 1;49(3):713-21 [PMID: 11172953]
  10. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Feb;119(2):455-63 [PMID: 17230076]
  11. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003 May;111(6):1871-5 [PMID: 12711946]
  12. Med Phys. 2005 Jun;32(6):1640-6 [PMID: 16013723]
  13. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001 Jul;108(1):78-82 [PMID: 11420508]
  14. Strahlenther Onkol. 2008 Jul;184(7):347-53 [PMID: 19016032]
  15. Strahlenther Onkol. 2007 Dec;183(12):661-6 [PMID: 18040609]
  16. Strahlenther Onkol. 2000 Oct;176(10):452-7 [PMID: 11068589]
  17. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004 Mar;113(3):877-81 [PMID: 15108879]
  18. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997 Oct;100(5):1153-60 [PMID: 9326776]
  19. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009 Apr;62(4):488-93 [PMID: 18262481]
  20. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000 Sep;106(3):624-9 [PMID: 10987469]
  21. Breast J. 2006 Sep-Oct;12(5 Suppl 2):S165-73 [PMID: 16958997]
  22. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991 Jul;21(2):339-46 [PMID: 2061110]
  23. Cancer. 1992 Sep 1;70(5):1145-51 [PMID: 1515989]
  24. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002 May;109(6):1919-24; discussion 1925-6 [PMID: 11994594]
  25. Ann Oncol. 2008 Aug;19(8):1430-1434 [PMID: 18390839]
  26. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003 Mar;111(3):1060-8 [PMID: 12621175]
  27. Strahlenther Onkol. 2008 May;184(5):262-9 [PMID: 18427757]
  28. Strahlenther Onkol. 2008 Jun;184(6):307-12 [PMID: 18535806]
  29. Strahlenther Onkol. 2007 Jul;183(7):357-9 [PMID: 17609867]
  30. Strahlenther Onkol. 2009 Apr;185(4):222-30 [PMID: 19370424]
  31. Strahlenther Onkol. 2001 Jan;177(1):1-9 [PMID: 11200107]
  32. Strahlenther Onkol. 1991 Dec;167(12):708-15 [PMID: 1763407]
  33. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995 Oct;96(5):1119-23; discussion 1124 [PMID: 7568488]
  34. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Sep 1;57(1):136-42 [PMID: 12909226]
  35. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Feb;20(1):61-7 [PMID: 18197008]
  36. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006 Sep 15;118(4):832-839 [PMID: 16980843]
  37. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Apr;121(4):1116-1126 [PMID: 18349628]
  38. Cleve Clin J Med. 2008 Mar;75 Suppl 1:S17-23 [PMID: 18457193]

MeSH Term

Adult
Aged
Breast Neoplasms
Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Lymph Node Excision
Lymphatic Metastasis
Mastectomy, Segmental
Middle Aged
Multivariate Analysis
Neoplasm Staging
Neoplasms, Hormone-Dependent
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
Radiotherapy, Adjuvant
Radiotherapy, High-Energy
Receptors, Estrogen
Receptors, Progesterone
Retrospective Studies
SEER Program
Survival Analysis

Chemicals

Receptors, Estrogen
Receptors, Progesterone

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0RT=patientspN+SEER<UZBrussel3postoperativesurvivalbenefitbreastdatabaseMEBCSOSp0ANDradiationtherapyonelymphnodesaxillarydissectionprovidescancernreceived>415yearswithoutBACKGROUNDPURPOSE:PostoperativesubjectdiscussionespeciallythreepositiveauthorsinvestigatedwhetherpT1-2PATIENTSMETHODS:PatientsincludedselectedNCI--SurveillanceEpidemiologyEndResultsrelease2000244101984-20021011accordingfollowingcriteria:womenaged25-95previousunilateralpT1-pT2tumorstotalmastectomybreast-conservingsurgeryshowingleastpathologicnodeRESULTS:overalldatabasesidenticalHoweverreceivesignificantlyworseoutcome0001comparableoutcomes15-yearsubgroup570%466%0004respectivelysignificantdifferenceseen:638%604%0029CONCLUSION:indicationthereforeadaptedfutureconsensusmeetingsSurvivalnode-positivecarcinoma

Similar Articles

Cited By