Skip to main content
Log in

Can the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Nomogram Predict the Likelihood of Nonsentinel Lymph Node Metastases in Breast Cancer Patients in The Netherlands?

  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

According to Dutch guidelines, an axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) is recommended whenever a sentinel lymph node (SLN) contains metastatic disease. However, only in approximately 50% of patients with metastatic disease in the SLN are additional nodal metastases detected in the completion ALND. To identify the individual patient’s risk for non-SLN metastases, a nomogram containing eight predictors was developed by the Breast Service of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (New York, NY). The aim of this study was to test the accuracy of the nomogram on a population of Dutch breast cancer patients.

Methods

Patient, tumor, and SLN metastasis characteristics were collected for 222 consecutive patients who underwent a completion ALND. The data of the index and test populations were compared. A receiver operating characteristic curve was drawn, and the area under the curve was calculated to assess the discriminative power of the nomogram.

Results

Even though our patient population differed in many respects from the source population, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve amounted to .77, a value very much comparable to the one found in the source population.

Conclusions

The nomogram provides a fairly accurate predicted probability for the likelihood of non-SLN metastases in a general population of breast cancer patients at a regional teaching hospital in The Netherlands. This suggests that the nomogram’s originally calculated predictive accuracy may be valid for patient populations that differ considerably from the population in which it was developed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fisher B, Bauer M, Wickerham DL, et al. Relation of number of positive axillary nodes to the prognosis of patients with primary breast cancer. An NSABP update. Cancer 1983;52:1551–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Turner RR, Ollila DW, Krasne DL, Giuliano AE. Histopathologic validation of the sentinel lymph node hypothesis for breast carcinoma. Ann Surg 1997;226:271–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Veronesi U. The sentinel node and breast cancer. Br J Surg 1999;86:1–2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Galimberti V, et al. Sentinel-node biopsy to avoid axillary dissection in breast cancer with clinically negative lymph-nodes. Lancet 1997;349:1864–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Giuliano AE, Haigh PI, Brennan MB, et al. Prospective observational study of sentinel lymphadenectomy without further axillary dissection in patients with sentinel node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:2553–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Krag D, Weaver D, Ashikaga T, et al. The sentinel node in breast cancer—a multicenter validation study. N Engl J Med 1998;339:941–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. O’Hea BJ, Hill AD, El Shirbiny AM, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: initial experience at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. J Am Coll Surg 1998;186:423–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Viale G, et al. A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;349:546–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fisher B, Redmond C, Fisher ER, et al. Ten-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing radical mastectomy and total mastectomy with or without radiation. N Engl J Med 1985;312:674–81

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Greco M, Agresti R, Cascinelli N, et al. Breast cancer patients treated without axillary surgery: clinical implications and biologic analysis. Ann Surg 2000;232:1–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Orr RK. The impact of prophylactic axillary node dissection on breast cancer survival—a Bayesian meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 1999;6:109–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Harris JR, Osteen RT. Patients with early breast cancer benefit from effective axillary treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1985;5:17–21

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Moore MP, Kinne DW. Axillary lymphadenectomy: a diagnostic and therapeutic procedure. J Surg Oncol 1997;66:2–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. American Joint Committee on Cancer. Breast. In: AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 6th ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2002:221–40

  15. Cady B. Case against axillary lymphadenectomy for most patients with infiltrating breast cancer. J Surg Oncol 1997;66:7–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Weiser MR, Montgomery LL, Tan LK, et al. Lymphovascular invasion enhances the prediction of non-sentinel node metastases in breast cancer patients with positive sentinel nodes. Ann Surg Oncol 2001;8:145–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Fant JS, Grant MD, Knox SM, et al. Preliminary outcome analysis in patients with breast cancer and a positive sentinel lymph node who declined axillary dissection. Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10:126–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rouzier R, Extra JM, Klijanienko J, et al. Incidence and prognostic significance of complete axillary downstaging after primary chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with T1 to T3 tumors and cytologically proven axillary metastatic lymph nodes. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:1304–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Van Zee KJ, Manasseh DM, Bevilacqua JL, et al. A nomogram for predicting the likelihood of additional nodal metastases in breast cancer patients with a positive sentinel node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10:1140–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Abdessalam SF, Zervos EE, Prasad M, et al. Predictors of positive axillary lymph nodes after sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer. Am J Surg 2001;182:316–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bevilacqua J, Cody H, MacDonald KA, Tan LK, Borgen PI, Van Zee KJ. A prospective validated model for predicting axillary node metastases based on 2,000 sentinel node procedures: the role of tumour location. Eur J Surg Oncol 2002;28:490–500

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Chu KU, Turner RR, Hansen NM, Brennan MB, Bilchik A, Giuliano AE. Do all patients with sentinel node metastasis from breast carcinoma need complete axillary node dissection? Ann Surg 1999;229:536–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Grube BJ, Hansen NM, Ye X, Giuliano AE. Tumor characteristics predictive of sentinel node metastases in 105 consecutive patients with invasive lobular carcinoma. Am J Surg 2002;184:372–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hwang RF, Krishnamurthy S, Hunt KK, et al. Clinicopathologic factors predicting involvement of nonsentinel axillary nodes in women with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10:248–54

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Port ER, Tan LK, Borgen PI, Van Zee KJ. Incidence of axillary lymph node metastases in T1a and T1b breast carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 1998;5:23–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Rahusen FD, Torrenga H, Van Diest PJ, et al. Predictive factors for metastatic involvement of nonsentinel nodes in patients with breast cancer. Arch Surg 2001;136:1059–63

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Sachdev U, Murphy K, Derzie A, Jaffer S, Bleiweiss IJ, Brower S. Predictors of nonsentinel lymph node metastasis in breast cancer patients. Am J Surg 2002;183:213–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Travagli JP, Atallah D, Mathieu MC, et al. Sentinel lymphadenectomy without systematic axillary dissection in breast cancer patients: predictors of non-sentinel lymph node metastasis. Eur J Surg Oncol 2003;29:403–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Viale G, Maiorano E, Mazzarol G, et al. Histologic detection and clinical implications of micrometastases in axillary sentinel lymph nodes for patients with breast carcinoma. Cancer 2001;92:1378–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Kamath VJ, Giuliano R, Dauway EL, et al. Characteristics of the sentinel lymph node in breast cancer predict further involvement of higher-echelon nodes in the axilla: a study to evaluate the need for complete axillary lymph node dissection. Arch Surg 2001;136:689–92

    Google Scholar 

  31. Degnim AC, Griffith KA, Sabel MS, et al. Clinicopathologic features of metastasis in nonsentinel lymph nodes of breast carcinoma patients. Cancer 2003;98:2307–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Specht MC, Kattan MW, Gonen M, Fey J, Van Zee KJ. Predicting nonsentinel node status after positive sentinel lymph biopsy for breast cancer: clinicians versus nomogram. Ann Surg Oncol 2005;12:654–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Smidt ML, Janssen CMM, Kuster DM, Bruggink EDM, Strobbe LJA. Axillary recurrence after a negative sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer: incidence and clinical significance. Ann Surg Oncol 2005;12:29–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank J. M. M. Groenewoud of the Department of Medical Technology Assessment, Radboud University Medical Centre, for statistical support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marjolein L. Smidt MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smidt, M.L., Kuster, D.M., van der Wilt, G.J. et al. Can the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Nomogram Predict the Likelihood of Nonsentinel Lymph Node Metastases in Breast Cancer Patients in The Netherlands?. Ann Surg Oncol 12, 1066–1072 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1245/ASO.2005.07.022

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/ASO.2005.07.022

Keywords

Navigation