Sentinel Lymph Node Disease


Published on

by Elshami Elamin, Consultant Oncologist, Wichita, KS

Published in: Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Sentinel Lymph Node Disease

  1. 1. Elshami M Elamin, MD Medical Oncologist Central Care Cancer Center Wichita, KS - USA
  2. 2.  LN mets are the most significant prognostic indicator for breast cancer SLN biopsy can be used as an initial evaluation of the axilla in patients with clinically negative axillary nodes.
  3. 3. No ALND Negative Stage I-II SLN *SLN mapping Positivecandidate Yes ALND SN not identified*SLN involvement identified by H&E.*IHC for equivocal cases only*SLN +ve by routine IHC is not recommended in clinical decision making
  4. 4.  We all agree:  ALND reliably identifies nodal mets  ALND maintains regional control Agree  Disagree Contribution of local therapy to breast ca survival
  5. 5.  Diagnostic and/or Therapeutic?  LN –ve:  70-90% 5YS  10% chance of death in 10Y  LN+ve:  50-70% risk of relapse  35% chance of death in 10Y  1-3 LN+ve: 60-80% 5YS  >4 LN+ve: 30-50% 5YS 6
  6. 6.  A meta-analysis of breast cancer pts showing that locally controlling breast cancer via ALND improve disease patient survival ALND remain the standard of care for breast cancer pts that have + SLN
  7. 7.  In the absence of definitive data showing superior survival from ALND.  ALND should be considered optional in pts:  Favorable tumors  Unlike change of adj therapy  Elderly  Co-morbidities
  8. 8.  ALND risks:  Restricted range of motion  Pain discomfort  Lymphedema  Infection  Seroma SLND
  9. 9.  Candidates:  Clinically -ve nodes  Solitary T1 or T2  ?? High grade/extensive DCIS  No large hematoma or seroma  No neoadjuvant chemo SLN can’t be identified or +ve:  Formal axillary dissection 10
  10. 10.  Lymphatic mapping:  Blue dye = 83% success rate  Lymphoscintigraphy = 94%  Combined = 97%  False –ve: 0-11% 11
  11. 11.  Minimally invasive way to determine whether the axilla is involved  Decision to eliminate nodal dissection in face of a negative SLN is being examined by large clinical trial. If SLN +ve proceed with complete nodal dissection 12
  12. 12.  Definition: SLN metastases between 0.2mm and 2.0mm in size. It is considered negative by standard H&E, but positive by CK-IHC staining Clinical significance remains unknown  ALND: Yes or No????  Treat as N0 or N1????
  13. 13.  Hansen et al JCO 27:4679– 4684:  pts with isolated tumor cells (ITCs) and  de Boer et al. NEJM pN0[i+] and pN1mi do 361:653–663: not have worse 8-year  Pts with ITCs and DFS or OS compared pN1mi have reduced with pN0 pts. 5-year DFS  Pts with SLN mes >2 mm (pN1) have significantly reduced survival.
  14. 14. NCCN:*SLN involvement identified by H&E.*IHC for equivocal cases only*SLN +ve by routine IHC is notrecommended in clinical decision making
  15. 15. *Prognostic Advantage *? DFSALNDrisks
  16. 16. When SLN positive !!!•NO Study conclusively demonstrated: •Survival benefit or •Detriment for omitting ALND
  17. 17.  SLND accurately identifies nodal metastasis of early breast cancer But it is not clear whether further nodal dissection affects survival
  18. 18. The Current Standard•SLND alone: •If SLN is free of cancer•ALND: •If SLN contains cancer
  19. 19. Q: Whether ALND affectsoverall survival in breastcancer with SNLmetastasis or whetherSNLD alone is sufficient? A: --------------------
  20. 20.  Originally presented at the 2010 ASCO Annual Meeting Published on February 9, 2011, JAMA
  21. 21.  Randomized, multi-center, Phase III non- inferiority trial Conducted at 115 sites (May 1999 to Dec 2004) I or IIA (891 pts) No palpable LN Randomized 1:1  SLND  ALND or SLND alone  Both groups had a lumpectomy and adjuvant systemic treatment
  22. 22. Not eligible SLN by IHC > 3 positive SLNs Matted LNs Gross extra nodal disease Neoadjuvant therapy
  23. 23.  Age, stage of cancer, and tumor size did not vary significantly between the two groups The median number of LN removed in the ALND group was 17 compared with 2 in the SLND group The adjuvant systemic therapies received by both groups were comparable:  96% and 97% of the ALND and SLND patients The majority of pts received whole-breast RT
  24. 24.  To determine the effects of complete ALND on survival of patients with SLN metastasis of breast cancer
  25. 25.  OS was the primary end point, with a noninferiority margin of a 1-sided hazard ratio of less than 1.3 indicating that SLND alone is noninferior to ALND. DFS was a secondary end point.
  26. 26. 5 year OS 0.7% absolute difference  Favoring SLND
  27. 27.  SLND compared to ALND was not statistically inferior in terms of OS (P=0.008) The 5 YOS rates:  92.5% and 91.8% in the SLND-alone compared to the ALND DFS did not vary between the groups Morbidity:  Wound infections significantly more frequent  Axillary seromas in the ALND  Lymphedema group
  28. 28. Total Locoregional recurrence rate at 5 years •2.5% in SLND •3.6% in ALND Further F/U unlikely would result enough additional recurrences to generate aclinically meaningful survival difference
  29. 29.  The trial results suggest that women may be exposed to morbidity due to ALND with no meaningful improvement in overall survival, including women classified as high- risk (ER/PR -ve)
  30. 30.  Failure to achieve a target accrual of 1900 pts Potential randomization imbalance that favored the SLND-only cohort Follow-up was approximately 6 yrs and a longer- term follow-up would be beneficial, as early- stage breast cancer can reoccur at 10 to 15 years after diagnosis
  31. 31.  This data will likely change physician practice for early stage disease Caution:  That the study results do not apply to early-stage pts with high risk for reoccurrence:  Three or more positive SLN  Larger tumors  Those who received preoperative chemotherapy
  32. 32.  The results currently apply only to early stage breast cancer  Tumors < 5 cm  No clinically evident nodal involvement  Lumpectomy/RT  No MRM pts included in the study  >95% received adj systemic therapy  1-2 positive SLN  No extracapsular extension We have concerns about routinely omitting axillary dissection in younger women (under age 50), and cancers with particularly aggressive features, including those considered high grade In some cases, additional information about possible remaining lymph node involvement will be necessary to make decisions about chemotherapy or radiation, and further surgery may still be warranted
  33. 33. According to Z0011 The only additional information gained from ALND is the number of involved LN  Unlikely to change systemic therapy decison Z0011 results indicate that women with a positive SLN and clinical T1-2 undergoing L/RT  systemic therapy do not benefit from ALND in terms of:  Local control  DFS  OS
  34. 34. Z0011 vs NSABP B04 Z0011  NSABP B04  6 yrs f/u: No survival  25 yrs f/u No survival difference difference  N+ve: 100%  N+ve: 40%  5YS: > 90%  5YS: only 60%  First axillary failure in  First axillary failure: 19% SLND: Only 0.9% Conclusion: High rate of locoregional control even without ALNDNSABP B04: N-ve pts: rad mastectomy vs total mastectomy + Nodal RT or Delayed Nodal RT for node recurrence
  35. 35. Z0011 vs NSABP B04 Changes of breast cancer management during the interval between the 2 studies  Improved imaging  Detailed pathologic evaluation  Improved planning of surgical and radiation approaches  More effective systemic therapy
  36. 36. The International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial of ALND vs Observation > 50% of pts did not receive breast or axillary RT Women >60 on adj Tamoxifen and No axillary treatment:  Axillary recurrence was only 3%  OS was 73% (median F/U of 6.6Y)
  37. 37. For which pts is the ALND remains the standard of care? Pts with positive SLN and: 1. Mastectomy 2. Lumpectomy without RT 3. Partial breast RT 4. Neoadjuvant therapy 5. Whole breast RT in the prone position (low axilla is not treated)
  38. 38.  These findings should encourage new and continuing dialogue between physicians and breast cancer patients and their families regarding the most appropriate treatment options available