Cargando…

The Prognostic Value of Lymph Node Cross-Sectional Cancer Area in Node-Positive Breast Cancer: A Comparison with N Stage and Lymph Node Ratio

The number of positive axillary lymph nodes (LNs) is the only node-related factor for prognostic evaluation of breast cancer recognized by AJCC (TNM staging). However, N staging may not completely reflect LN tumor involvement due to the erroneous count of LNs in the presence of matted LNs and differ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Yanxia, Holmes, Earle, Shah, Karan, Albuquerque, Kevin, Szpaderska, Anna, Erşahin, Çağatay
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3472529/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23094198
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/161964
_version_ 1782246612897103872
author Li, Yanxia
Holmes, Earle
Shah, Karan
Albuquerque, Kevin
Szpaderska, Anna
Erşahin, Çağatay
author_facet Li, Yanxia
Holmes, Earle
Shah, Karan
Albuquerque, Kevin
Szpaderska, Anna
Erşahin, Çağatay
author_sort Li, Yanxia
collection PubMed
description The number of positive axillary lymph nodes (LNs) is the only node-related factor for prognostic evaluation of breast cancer recognized by AJCC (TNM staging). However, N staging may not completely reflect LN tumor involvement due to the erroneous count of LNs in the presence of matted LNs and different tumor volume in LNs. Additionally, the positive/total LN ratio (LNR) has been shown to outperform N staging in survival prediction. In our study, to better quantify the tumor involvement of axillary LNs, we measured the cross-sectional cancer area (CSCA) of the positive LNs in 292 breast cancer patients diagnosed between 1998 and 2000 in our institution and compared its prognostic value to that of number of positive LNs (metLN)/N stage and LNR. Statistical analyses of these three LN-related factors were performed by Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate Cox's regression model. Patients were divided into three groups based on the different LN CSCA (<50, 50–500, and >500 mm(2)), or LNR (<0.1, 0.1–0.65, and >0.65), or N stage (N1–N3). Multivariate analysis demonstrated LNR was the most significant LN-related survival predictor with hazard ratio (HR) 25.0 (P = 0.001), compared to the metLN (HR 0.09, P = 0.052) and CSCA (HR 2.24, P = 0.323).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3472529
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34725292012-10-23 The Prognostic Value of Lymph Node Cross-Sectional Cancer Area in Node-Positive Breast Cancer: A Comparison with N Stage and Lymph Node Ratio Li, Yanxia Holmes, Earle Shah, Karan Albuquerque, Kevin Szpaderska, Anna Erşahin, Çağatay Patholog Res Int Research Article The number of positive axillary lymph nodes (LNs) is the only node-related factor for prognostic evaluation of breast cancer recognized by AJCC (TNM staging). However, N staging may not completely reflect LN tumor involvement due to the erroneous count of LNs in the presence of matted LNs and different tumor volume in LNs. Additionally, the positive/total LN ratio (LNR) has been shown to outperform N staging in survival prediction. In our study, to better quantify the tumor involvement of axillary LNs, we measured the cross-sectional cancer area (CSCA) of the positive LNs in 292 breast cancer patients diagnosed between 1998 and 2000 in our institution and compared its prognostic value to that of number of positive LNs (metLN)/N stage and LNR. Statistical analyses of these three LN-related factors were performed by Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate Cox's regression model. Patients were divided into three groups based on the different LN CSCA (<50, 50–500, and >500 mm(2)), or LNR (<0.1, 0.1–0.65, and >0.65), or N stage (N1–N3). Multivariate analysis demonstrated LNR was the most significant LN-related survival predictor with hazard ratio (HR) 25.0 (P = 0.001), compared to the metLN (HR 0.09, P = 0.052) and CSCA (HR 2.24, P = 0.323). Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2012 2012-10-04 /pmc/articles/PMC3472529/ /pubmed/23094198 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/161964 Text en Copyright © 2012 Yanxia Li et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Li, Yanxia
Holmes, Earle
Shah, Karan
Albuquerque, Kevin
Szpaderska, Anna
Erşahin, Çağatay
The Prognostic Value of Lymph Node Cross-Sectional Cancer Area in Node-Positive Breast Cancer: A Comparison with N Stage and Lymph Node Ratio
title The Prognostic Value of Lymph Node Cross-Sectional Cancer Area in Node-Positive Breast Cancer: A Comparison with N Stage and Lymph Node Ratio
title_full The Prognostic Value of Lymph Node Cross-Sectional Cancer Area in Node-Positive Breast Cancer: A Comparison with N Stage and Lymph Node Ratio
title_fullStr The Prognostic Value of Lymph Node Cross-Sectional Cancer Area in Node-Positive Breast Cancer: A Comparison with N Stage and Lymph Node Ratio
title_full_unstemmed The Prognostic Value of Lymph Node Cross-Sectional Cancer Area in Node-Positive Breast Cancer: A Comparison with N Stage and Lymph Node Ratio
title_short The Prognostic Value of Lymph Node Cross-Sectional Cancer Area in Node-Positive Breast Cancer: A Comparison with N Stage and Lymph Node Ratio
title_sort prognostic value of lymph node cross-sectional cancer area in node-positive breast cancer: a comparison with n stage and lymph node ratio
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3472529/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23094198
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/161964
work_keys_str_mv AT liyanxia theprognosticvalueoflymphnodecrosssectionalcancerareainnodepositivebreastcanceracomparisonwithnstageandlymphnoderatio
AT holmesearle theprognosticvalueoflymphnodecrosssectionalcancerareainnodepositivebreastcanceracomparisonwithnstageandlymphnoderatio
AT shahkaran theprognosticvalueoflymphnodecrosssectionalcancerareainnodepositivebreastcanceracomparisonwithnstageandlymphnoderatio
AT albuquerquekevin theprognosticvalueoflymphnodecrosssectionalcancerareainnodepositivebreastcanceracomparisonwithnstageandlymphnoderatio
AT szpaderskaanna theprognosticvalueoflymphnodecrosssectionalcancerareainnodepositivebreastcanceracomparisonwithnstageandlymphnoderatio
AT ersahincagatay theprognosticvalueoflymphnodecrosssectionalcancerareainnodepositivebreastcanceracomparisonwithnstageandlymphnoderatio
AT liyanxia prognosticvalueoflymphnodecrosssectionalcancerareainnodepositivebreastcanceracomparisonwithnstageandlymphnoderatio
AT holmesearle prognosticvalueoflymphnodecrosssectionalcancerareainnodepositivebreastcanceracomparisonwithnstageandlymphnoderatio
AT shahkaran prognosticvalueoflymphnodecrosssectionalcancerareainnodepositivebreastcanceracomparisonwithnstageandlymphnoderatio
AT albuquerquekevin prognosticvalueoflymphnodecrosssectionalcancerareainnodepositivebreastcanceracomparisonwithnstageandlymphnoderatio
AT szpaderskaanna prognosticvalueoflymphnodecrosssectionalcancerareainnodepositivebreastcanceracomparisonwithnstageandlymphnoderatio
AT ersahincagatay prognosticvalueoflymphnodecrosssectionalcancerareainnodepositivebreastcanceracomparisonwithnstageandlymphnoderatio