Mammographically Detected Breast Cancers and the Risk of Axillary Lymph Node Involvement: Is It Just the Tumor Size?

R. Heimann, Melissa A. Munsell, R. McBride
{"title":"Mammographically Detected Breast Cancers and the Risk of Axillary Lymph Node Involvement: Is It Just the Tumor Size?","authors":"R. Heimann, Melissa A. Munsell, R. McBride","doi":"10.1097/00130404-200205000-00012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSEIn early breast cancer the knowledge of the risk of axillary node involvement is important in determining local as well as systemic therapy. Because of the increased acceptance of mammography, there has been an increase in the diagnosis of small, mammographically detected tumors. The objective of this study is to determine whether mammographically detected breast cancers have a lower risk of axillary node involvement compared to those detected clinically. PATIENTS AND METHODSFrom our patient database of stage I and II breast cancer we identified 980 patients with tumors <2cm whom had axillary node dissection. Four hundred thirty-five (44%) patients presented with abnormal mammograms without clinically palpable tumors; 545 (56%) patients had clinically detected tumors. The median size of the mammographically detected tumors is 1.0 cm, and the median size of the clinically detected tumors is 1.5 cm. The median age of the patients with mammographically detected tumors is 61 (range: 29–87) compared to 53 (range: 27–88) in those with palpable tumors. RESULTSFourteen percent of the patients with mammographically detected tumors had positive axillary nodes compared to 26% of those with clinically detected tumors. Eight percent of patients with mammographically detected tumors had a single positive, while the clinically detected tumors 11% had a single positive node. Thirteen percent of patients with ≤1 cm tumors and 25% with tumors 1.1 cm to 2 cm had positive axillary nodes. Because the smaller size of the mammographically detected tumors could explain the lower proportion of positive axillary nodes, we analyzed separately the ≤ 1 cm tumors. In the group of ≤ 1 cm tumors, 9% had positive axillary nodes if they were mammographically detected compared to 19% if clinically detected. Four percent had a single positive node while 5% had multiple positive nodes. If the tumors were palpable and ≤ 1 cm 9% had a single positive node and 10% had multiple positive nodes. Mammographically detected tumors ≤ 1 cm had similargrade to clinically detected tumors. In multivariate analysis, method of detection remains a significant variable impacting on the risk of axillary node involvement even in tumors ≤ 1 cm. DISCUSSIONThe risk of axillary node involvement is lower in mammographically detected tumors compared to clinically detected tumors independent of tumor size or grade. Mammography detects tumors early in their metastatic progression. The majority of the axillary node-positive patients who are mammographically detected have a single positive axillary node. Method of detection may need to be considered when assessing the risk of axillary node involvement and incorporated in the staging.","PeriodicalId":22430,"journal":{"name":"The Cancer Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"276–281"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Cancer Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/00130404-200205000-00012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

PURPOSEIn early breast cancer the knowledge of the risk of axillary node involvement is important in determining local as well as systemic therapy. Because of the increased acceptance of mammography, there has been an increase in the diagnosis of small, mammographically detected tumors. The objective of this study is to determine whether mammographically detected breast cancers have a lower risk of axillary node involvement compared to those detected clinically. PATIENTS AND METHODSFrom our patient database of stage I and II breast cancer we identified 980 patients with tumors <2cm whom had axillary node dissection. Four hundred thirty-five (44%) patients presented with abnormal mammograms without clinically palpable tumors; 545 (56%) patients had clinically detected tumors. The median size of the mammographically detected tumors is 1.0 cm, and the median size of the clinically detected tumors is 1.5 cm. The median age of the patients with mammographically detected tumors is 61 (range: 29–87) compared to 53 (range: 27–88) in those with palpable tumors. RESULTSFourteen percent of the patients with mammographically detected tumors had positive axillary nodes compared to 26% of those with clinically detected tumors. Eight percent of patients with mammographically detected tumors had a single positive, while the clinically detected tumors 11% had a single positive node. Thirteen percent of patients with ≤1 cm tumors and 25% with tumors 1.1 cm to 2 cm had positive axillary nodes. Because the smaller size of the mammographically detected tumors could explain the lower proportion of positive axillary nodes, we analyzed separately the ≤ 1 cm tumors. In the group of ≤ 1 cm tumors, 9% had positive axillary nodes if they were mammographically detected compared to 19% if clinically detected. Four percent had a single positive node while 5% had multiple positive nodes. If the tumors were palpable and ≤ 1 cm 9% had a single positive node and 10% had multiple positive nodes. Mammographically detected tumors ≤ 1 cm had similargrade to clinically detected tumors. In multivariate analysis, method of detection remains a significant variable impacting on the risk of axillary node involvement even in tumors ≤ 1 cm. DISCUSSIONThe risk of axillary node involvement is lower in mammographically detected tumors compared to clinically detected tumors independent of tumor size or grade. Mammography detects tumors early in their metastatic progression. The majority of the axillary node-positive patients who are mammographically detected have a single positive axillary node. Method of detection may need to be considered when assessing the risk of axillary node involvement and incorporated in the staging.
乳房x光检查发现的乳腺癌和腋窝淋巴结累及的风险:仅仅是肿瘤大小吗?
目的在早期乳腺癌中,了解腋窝淋巴结受累的风险对于确定局部和全身治疗是很重要的。由于乳房x光检查的接受度越来越高,乳房x光检查发现的小肿瘤的诊断率也在增加。本研究的目的是确定乳房x光检查发现的乳腺癌是否比临床发现的乳腺癌有更低的腋窝淋巴结累及风险。患者和方法从我们的I期和II期乳腺癌患者数据库中,我们确定了980例肿瘤<2cm的患者进行腋窝淋巴结清扫。435例(44%)患者表现为乳房x线检查异常,但临床未见明显肿瘤;临床检出肿瘤545例(56%)。乳房x线检查肿瘤的中位尺寸为1.0 cm,临床检查肿瘤的中位尺寸为1.5 cm。乳房x线检查发现肿瘤患者的中位年龄为61岁(范围29-87岁),而可触及肿瘤患者的中位年龄为53岁(范围27-88岁)。结果乳房x线检查发现的肿瘤患者腋窝淋巴结阳性的比例为14%,而临床发现的肿瘤患者腋窝淋巴结阳性的比例为26%。在乳房x光检查发现的肿瘤患者中,8%的患者有一个单一的阳性淋巴结,而在临床检测到的肿瘤中,11%的患者有一个单一的阳性淋巴结。≤1cm的患者腋窝淋巴结阳性占13%,1.1 cm ~ 2cm的患者腋窝淋巴结阳性占25%。由于乳房x线检查发现的肿瘤体积较小可以解释腋窝淋巴结阳性比例较低的原因,因此我们将≤1 cm的肿瘤单独分析。在≤1cm肿瘤组中,9%的乳房x线检查发现腋窝淋巴结阳性,而19%的临床检查发现腋窝淋巴结阳性。4%的人有一个阳性节点,5%的人有多个阳性节点。如果肿瘤可触及且≤1cm,则9%为单个阳性结,10%为多个阳性结。乳房x线检查发现的≤1cm的肿瘤与临床发现的肿瘤分级相似。在多变量分析中,即使肿瘤≤1 cm,检测方法仍然是影响腋窝淋巴结受累风险的重要变量。与临床发现的肿瘤相比,乳房x线检查发现的肿瘤腋窝淋巴结累及的风险较低,与肿瘤大小或分级无关。乳房x光检查可以在肿瘤转移进展的早期发现肿瘤。大多数腋窝淋巴结阳性的患者在乳房x光检查中只有一个腋窝淋巴结阳性。在评估腋窝淋巴结受累的风险和分期时,可能需要考虑检测方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信