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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |