Abstract PD4-02: Sentinel node biopsy should not be routine in older patients with ER positive breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".