Download Phase III Randomized Breast Cancer Lymph Node Study Likely to

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts
no text concepts found
Transcript
Elshami M Elamin, MD
Medical Oncologist
Central Care Cancer Center
www.ccancer.com
Wichita, KS - USA

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.
No ALND
Negative
Stage
I-II
*SLN
candidate
SLN
mapping
Positive
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

We all agree:
 ALND reliably identifies nodal mets
 ALND maintains regional control
Agree  Disagree
Contribution of local therapy
to breast ca survival

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:
 >4 LN+ve:
60-80% 5YS
30-50% 5YS
5

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

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

ALND risks:





Restricted range of motion
Pain discomfort
Lymphedema
Infection
Seroma
SLND

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
9

Lymphatic mapping:




Blue dye = 83% success rate
Lymphoscintigraphy = 94%
Combined = 97%
False –ve: 0-11%
10

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
11

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????

Hansen et al JCO 27:4679–
4684:
 pts with isolated tumor
cells (ITCs) and
pN0[i+] and pN1mi do
not have worse 8-year
DFS or OS compared
with pN0 pts.
 Pts with SLN mes >2
mm (pN1) have
significantly reduced
survival.

de Boer et al. NEJM
361:653–663:
 Pts with ITCs and
pN1mi have reduced
5-year DFS
NCCN:
*SLN involvement identified by H&E.
*IHC for equivocal cases only
*SLN +ve by routine IHC is not
recommended in clinical decision making
*Prognostic
Advantage
*? DFS
ALND
risks
When SLN positive !!!
•NO Study conclusively demonstrated:
•Survival benefit or
•Detriment for omitting ALND

SLND accurately identifies nodal metastasis
of early breast cancer

But it is not clear whether further nodal
dissection affects survival
The Current Standard
•SLND alone:
•If SLN is free of cancer
•ALND:
•If SLN contains cancer
Q: Whether ALND affects
overall survival in breast
cancer with SNL
metastasis or whether
SNLD alone is sufficient?
A: --------------------

Originally presented at the 2010 ASCO
Annual Meeting

Published on February 9, 2011, JAMA





Randomized, multi-center, Phase III noninferiority 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
Not eligible





SLN by IHC
> 3 positive SLNs
Matted LNs
Gross extra nodal disease
Neoadjuvant therapy



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

To determine the effects of complete ALND
on survival of patients with SLN metastasis of
breast cancer

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.
5 year OS

0.7% absolute difference
 Favoring SLND


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
 Axillary seromas
 Lymphedema
significantly
more frequent
in the ALND
group
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

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)

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 longerterm follow-up would be beneficial, as earlystage breast cancer can reoccur at 10 to 15
years after diagnosis

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

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
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
Z0011 vs NSABP B04

Z0011
 6 yrs f/u: No survival
difference
 N+ve: 100%
 5YS: > 90%
 First axillary failure in
SLND: Only 0.9%
Conclusion:
High rate of locoregional
control even without
ALND

NSABP B04
 25 yrs f/u No survival
difference
 N+ve: 40%
 5YS: only 60%
 First axillary failure: 19%
NSABP B04: N-ve pts: rad mastectomy vs total mastectomy + Nodal RT or Delayed Nodal RT for node recurrence
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
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)
For which pts is the ALND remains
the standard of care?

Pts with positive SLN and:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Mastectomy
Lumpectomy without RT
Partial breast RT
Neoadjuvant therapy
Whole breast RT in the prone position (low axilla
is not treated)

These findings should encourage new and
continuing dialogue between physicians and
breast cancer patients and their families
regarding the most appropriate treatment
options available