Abstract PD4-02: Sentinel node biopsy should not be routine in older patients with ER positive breast cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background:Based on randomized controlled trials demonstrating no survival benefit of axillary dissection in elderly breast cancer patients, the SSO/Choosing Wisely campaign recommended against the routine use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in clinically node negative patients aged ≥70 with estrogen receptor (ER) positive breast cancer in 2016. SLNB is still performed in >80% of such patients and we have previously shown that at our institution, SLNB positivity influences adjuvant therapy decisions in this population. In this study, we sought to validate the association of SLNB positivity and adjuvant treatment in a larger population-based cohort, and to evaluate the impact of this finding on oncologic outcomes. Methods:The Breast Cancer Outcome Unit (BCOU) prospectively collects demographic, pathologic, treatment and outcomes data on all patients referred to BC Cancer with breast cancer in British Columbia, Canada. Female patients aged ≥70 with newly diagnosed estrogen receptor-positive invasive breast cancer who underwent SLNB from 2010-2016 were included. Patients with HER2-positive disease or those treated with neoadjuvant therapy were excluded. Multivariable analysis was used to assess the effect of SLNB positivity on adjuvant treatment. Overall survival (OS) and breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression was used to assess contribution of SLNB positivity and adjuvant treatment. A nomogram was created to model the effect of nodal positivity and adjuvant treatment on BCSS. Results:We identified 2580 patients who met study criteria with a median age of 75 and a median tumor size of 15 mm. SLNB was positive in 23%. Sixty-seven percent of patients had breast conserving surgery (BCS) and 62% of patients had RT (BCS 79%, mastectomy 25%). As systemic therapy 5% of patients had chemotherapy (CT) and 78% of patients had hormone therapy (HT). Use of adjuvant therapies was associated with SLNB positivity: Systemic therapy (HR = 2.4, 95% CI: 1.84-3.14, p <0.0001), RT (HR = 4.94, 95% CI: 3.91-6.25, p <0.0001) and nodal RT (HR = 61.4, 95% CI: 26.6-141.7, p <0.0001). The 5-year OS was 86% and BCSS was 96% with a median follow-up of 4.33 years (95% CI 4.21-4.47 years). There was improved BCSS with receipt of HT (HR 0.51 95% CI 0.301-0.875, p=0.0142) and worse BCSS with grade 3 vs grade 1 disease (HR 4.09, 95% CI 2.06-8.10, p<0.0001). Age, tumor size, status of SLNB and use of RT were not significant prognostic variables. Patients with a positive SLNB who did not receive any adjuvant therapy had lower BCSS (HR 3.22 95% CI 1.235-8.418, p=0.0168) than those with a negative SLNB. However, amongst those who received any combination of CT, HT and RT, there was no significant difference in BCSS regardless of nodal status. A nomogram was developed incorporating tumor size, grade, SLNB status and adjuvant treatment. Using the nomogram, patients aged 75-79 with T1, grade 1-2 tumors, with or without positive SLNB and treated with or without adjuvant therapy had 5-year BCSS ≥95%. The nomogram also indicated that 5-year BCSS was similar for patients with positive and negative SLNB for all combinations of tumor features when patients received HT. Conclusions:In this modern, population-based cohort of patients over 70 with ER-positive breast cancer, 5-year BCSS was excellent at 96%. Although the use of adjuvant treatment was associated with a positive SLNB, BCSS was not changed based on nodal status when patients received HT. Our results support the Choosing Wisely recommendations; SLNB can be safely omitted in elderly patients willing to take HT, and we advocate that SLNB can be omitted in low-risk patients aged ≥75 even in the absence of planned HT. Citation Format: Elaine McKevitt, Rona Cheifetz, Kimberly DeVries, Alison Laws, Rebecca Warburton, Lovedeep Gondara, Caroline Lohrisch, Alan Nichol. Sentinel node biopsy should not be routine in older patients with ER positive breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD4-02.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».