Volume 66, Issue 5 , Pages 1328-1334, 1 December 2006
The impact of axillary lymph nodes removed in staging of node-positive breast carcinoma
Purpose: Number of positive lymph nodes in the axilla and pathologic lymph node status (pN) have a great impact on staging according to the current American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system of breast carcinoma. Our aim was to define whether the total number of removed axillary lymph nodes influences the pN and thus the staging.
Methods and Materials: The records of 798 consecutive invasive breast cancer patients with T1-3 tumors and positive axillary lymph nodes who underwent modified radical mastectomy between 1999 and 2005 in our hospital were reviewed. The total number of removed nodes were grouped, and compared with the patient and tumor characteristics and the influence of the number of nodes removed on the staging was analyzed.
Results: The proportion of patients with ≥4 positive nodes (59%), and pN3 status (51%) were the highest in the group with 21–25 nodes removed. Compared with patients with 1–20 nodes removed, the proportion of patients with ≥4 positive nodes (52%), and pN3 status (46%) were significantly higher in those with more than 20 nodes removed. Although the proportion of Stage IIA and IIB decreased, the proportion of Stage IIIA and IIIC increased in patients with >20 nodes removed compared with those with 1–20 nodes removed.
Conclusions: In patients with axillary node–positive breast carcinoma, staging is highly influenced by total number of removed nodes. Levels I–III axillary dissection with more than 20 axillary lymph nodes removed could lead to more effective adjuvant chemotherapy and increases substantially the proportion of patients to receive radiotherapy.
Keywords: Lymph node–positive breast carcinoma, removed axillary nodes, staging of breast carcinoma
To access this article, please choose from the options below
This study was performed at Ankara Oncology Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
PII: S0360-3016(06)01254-5
doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.07.015
© 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Volume 66, Issue 5 , Pages 1328-1334, 1 December 2006
