From the publishers of The New England Journal of Medicine

Save time and stay informed. Our physician-editors offer you clinical perspectives on key research and news.

  1. Home>
  2. Specialties>
  3. Oncology and Hematology>
  4. Summary and Comment

Axillary Lymph Node Nanometastases

These results suggest that even minimal involvement of lymph nodes confers a poor prognosis in breast cancer patients.

One of many dilemmas that oncologists face is determining the prognostic significance of micrometastases or isolated tumor cells that are identified in axillary lymph nodes. An extension of this problem is the potential influence of minute metastases on treatment decisions. In many cases, patients who are defined as axillary node–negative (pN0) receive recommendations for no adjuvant therapy at all, adjuvant endocrine therapy alone, or adjuvant chemotherapy regimens that are different from those used in confirmed axillary node–positive disease. Previous studies have suggested that minute metastases (nanometastases) detected by immunohistochemistry (IHC), as well as the larger micrometastases identified by hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining, have prognostic significance. At present, H&E staining remains the standard for assessing dissected lymph nodes.

To determine whether nanometastases influenced outcomes, researchers retrospectively evaluated a series of 702 consecutive patients who underwent surgery and axillary dissection at a single Italian institution from 1989 through 1993; median follow-up was 8 years. Consistent with treatment standards of the early 1990s, only 8% of the 377 pN0 patients had been treated with chemotherapy, and 22% had been treated with tamoxifen.

All pN0 cases were reevaluated by step-sectioning and anticytokeratin IHC analysis. A total of 6676 axillary lymph nodes were restaged, with an average of 250 lymph node sections analyzed per patient; nodes with tumor-cell deposits ≤0.2 mm in diameter were designated pN0(i+) nanometastases. After reevaluation, 328 cases (87%) were determined to be pN0(i-), and cancer cells were revealed in 49 cases (13%): 24 (6.4%) were classified as pN0(i+) nanometastases (median size, 0.14 mm), and 25 (6.6%) were classified as pN1mi micrometastases (range, 0.21–2.0 mm). The fraction of pN0(i+) and pN0(i-) patients who received adjuvant therapy was similar. Compared with pN0(i-) patients, pN0(i+) patients had a hazard ratio for any adverse event of 2.51 (P=0.00019), whereas no significant difference was noted between pN1mi and pN0(i+) patients. Metastatic relapse was also significantly more common among pN0(i+) patients than among pN0(i-) patients. This unfavorable prognostic effect persisted in multivariate analyses that included tumor grade, pathologic tumor stage, and age.

Comment: These results suggest that even minimal involvement of lymph nodes, nanometastases, confers worse prognoses to patients who would otherwise be considered node–negative. Important caveats regarding this study include that a relatively small number of patients were reclassified as pN0(i+) (on which conclusions regarding prognosis were based) and that few patients in this series received adjuvant therapy of any kind. Whether contemporary recommendations on the use of adjuvant therapy in node-negative patients would have offset the effect of having pN0(i+) disease is unknown. Finally, the effort that was expended to analyze these axillary lymph nodes was high — to analyze all dissected nodes in this way on a regular basis would add significant burden to pathologists, and methods would have to be standardized so that a common convention could be used by all institutions.

— William J. Gradishar, MD

Published in Journal Watch Oncology and Hematology December 18, 2006

Citation(s):

Querzoli P et al. Axillary lymph node nanometastases are prognostic factors for disease-free survival and metastatic relapse in breast cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 2006 Nov 15; 12:6696-701.

Your Remark:

Reader Remarks are intended to encourage lively discussion of clinical topics with your peers in the medical community. Please consider this when composing your remark.

Fields marked with an * are required.

Name as you'd like it to appear:

Submitting a comment indicates you have read and agreed to the remark guidelines and declare:*

PRIVACY: We will not use your email address, submitted for a comment, for any other purpose nor sell, rent, or share your e-mail address with any third parties. Please see our Privacy Policy.

 

CLEAR erases anything you've added in any part of the form. CONTINUE allows you to check your entire post (and edit it if necessary) before submitting.

To ensure that your Reader Remark is not formatted as one long paragraph, precede new paragraphs with either a blank line or an indentation.

Search

Advanced

Article Tools

Reader Remarks

Sign-In

Forgot your password?

New to Journal Watch?

E-mail Alerts

Delivered to your inbox.
Tailored to your interests. Free.

Sign Up Now!

Journal Watch Newsletters

Available in 13 specialties with convenient delivery and 10 free online CME exams.

Subscribe Now!

Copyright © 2006. Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.