Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Cancer Res Treat : Cancer Research and Treatment

Search
Advanced Search
OPEN ACCESS
mobile search button mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 47(4); 2015 > Article
Original Article Using the Lymph Node Ratio to Evaluate the Prognosis of Stage II/III Breast Cancer Patients Who Received Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Mastectomy
San-Gang Wu, MD1, Qun Li, MD2, Juan Zhou, MD3, Jia-Yuan Sun, MD2, Feng-Yan Li, MD2, Qin Lin, MD1, Huan-Xin Lin, MD2, Xun-Xing Gaun, MD2, Zhen-Yu He, MD2,
Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2015;47(4):757-764.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2014.039
Published online: December 8, 2014

1Xiamen Cancer Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, China

2Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China

3Xiamen Cancer Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, China

Correspondence: Zhen-Yu He, MD  Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou 510060, China 
Tel: 86-20-8734-3543 Fax: 86-20-8734-3392 E-mail: hezhy@sysucc.org.cn
*San-Gang Wu and Qun Li contributed equally to this work.
• Received: February 12, 2014   • Accepted: June 11, 2014

Copyright © 2015 by the Korean Cancer Association

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 12,329 Views
  • 87 Download
  • 18 Web of Science
  • 14 Crossref
  • 18 Scopus
prev next
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • Purpose
    This study was conducted to investigate the prognostic value of lymph node ratio (LNR) in stage II/III breast cancer patients who undergo mastectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
  • Materials and Methods
    Clinical and pathological data describing stage II/III breast cancer patients were included in this retrospective study. The primary outcomes were locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS).
  • Results
    Among 277 patients, there were 43 ypN0, 64 ypN1, 89 ypN2, and 81 ypN3 cases. Additionally, there were 43, 57, 92 and 85 cases in the LNR 0, 0.01-0.20, 0.21-0.65, and > 0.65 groups, respectively. The median follow-up was 49.5 months. Univariate analysis showed that both ypN stage and LNR were prognostic factors of LRFS, DMFS, DFS, and OS (p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that LNR was an independent prognostic factor of LRFS, DMFS, DFS, and OS (p < 0.05), while ypN stage had no effect on prognosis (p > 0.05).
  • Conclusion
    The integrated use of LNR and ypN may be suitable for evaluation the prognosis of stage II/III breast cancer patients who undergo mastectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
  • Key words: Breast neoplasms, Mastectomy, Neoadjuvant therapy, Lymph nodes, Prognosis
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an important component of combination treatment strategies for locally advanced breast cancer. Randomized trials have confirmed that neoadjuvant chemotherapy can achieve the same effects as adjuvant chemotherapy [1], and that tumor response to chemotherapy can be predicted and the breast conservation rate in patients with early-stage breast cancer improved [2-4]. Axillary lymph node metastasis is an important factor in the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging of breast cancer, as well as an important reference indicator that guides the selection of postoperative adjuvant treatment for locally advanced breast cancer. However, due to the varying effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on axillary lymph node status in patients with locally advanced breast cancer, the number of axillary lymph nodes detected in postoperative patients who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy is significantly lower than that in patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy [5-9]. This often leads to underestimation of the true axillary lymph node status in these patients, and thus affects prognosis prediction and selection of surgery and adjuvant therapy. Therefore, more appropriate methods for assessment of the status of axillary lymph nodes are needed.
The axillary lymph node ratio (LNR) refers to the ratio of the number of positive axillary lymph nodes to the number of removed lymph nodes at axillary lymph node dissection, and is currently an active field of investigation. Multiple studies have found that LNR is an important prognostic factor in breast cancer patients who have not received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and its prognostic value may be greater than that of current N staging [10-13]. Investigations of Chinese women with breast cancer have reported similar results [14,15]. However, very few studies have investigated the prognostic value of LNR in patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate the prognostic values of LNR and ypN surgical staging in stage II/III breast cancer patients who underwent mastectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
1. Patients
This study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the ethics committee of Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center. Written consent was given by the patients for their information to be stored in the hospital database and used for research. Clinical and pathological data describing breast cancer patients who were treated at Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center from January 1998 to December 2007 were retrospectively analyzed. Inclusion criteria were (1) female with unilateral breast cancer; (2) clinical stage II/III without distant metastasis at initial diagnosis; (3) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery; (4) underwent mastectomy and axillary lymph node dissection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy; (5) complete surgical resection of the tumor and negative surgical margins; (6) estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epithelial growth factor receptor family 2 (HER2) status were evaluated; (7) no sign of malignant tumor in other organs at diagnosis.
2. Clinicopathologic factors and lymph node status
Clinical, pathological, and immunohistochemical factors including age, menopausal status, initial clinical stage, ypT stage, ypN stage, ER, PR, HER2 status and molecular subtype were used to assess the risk of recurrence and death. ypT and ypN stage were based on the criteria in the 2009 7th edition of the AJCC staging manual for breast cancer. LNR was as defined as in the study by Vinh-Hung et al. [10], and patients were divided into four groups: LNR=0, 0.01-0.20, 0.21-0.65, and > 0.65. More than 1% of the immunostained malignant cells were ER and PR positive. HER2 positivity was indicated by a 3+ or 2+ score upon immunohistochemical evaluation and confirmed using a fluorescence in situ hybridization test for HER2. We could not exactly define breast cancer intrinsic subtypes with immunohistochemistry in all tumors [16] since the exact value of Ki-67 was not available. Therefore, we classified breast cancer intrinsic subtypes as follows: (1) luminal A (ER+ and/or PR+, HER2–); (2) luminal B (ER+ and/or PR+, HER2+); HER2 enriched (ER−, PR– and HER2+); and (3) triple negative (ER−, PR– and HER2–) [17].
3. Follow-up and survival endpoints
After initial diagnosis, patients were followed up once every 3-6 months. The endpoints of the study were locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS), distant metastasisfree survival (DMFS), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Locoregional recurrence was defined as a pathologically proven recurrence in the ipsilateral chest wall, supraclavicular and infraclavicular areas, axilla, and internal mammary region. Distant metastasis was defined as recurrence at any site other than those defined as locoregional recurrence, which was confirmed by imaging studies and pathological examination of a tissue specimen when necessary. OS was defined as breast cancer and non-breast cancer related deaths.
4. Statistical analysis
The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate survival rate and plot the survival curve, and differences were examined using the log-rank test. A Cox regression model was performed using the stepwise method, and significant variables in univariate analysis (p < 0.05) were entered into a multivariate Cox regression model. SPSS ver. 16.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) was used for all analyses, and a value of p < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.
1. General information
A total of 277 patients were included in this study. The median age at diagnosis was 47 years (range, 27 to 74 years), and the preoperative clinical stage was stage II in 30 cases (10.8%) and stage III in 247 cases (89.2%). The median number of lymph nodes removed at axillary lymph node dissection was 16 (range, 3 to 47), and the median number of positive lymph nodes was 5 (range, 0 to 46). The ypN stage was ypN0 in 43 cases (15.5%), ypN1 in 64 cases (23.1%), ypN2 in 89 cases (32.2%), and ypN3 in 81 cases (29.2%). There were 43 cases in the LNR 0.0 group (15.5%), 57 in the 0.01-0.20 group (20.6%), 92 in the 0.21-0.65 group (33.2%), and 85 in the > 0.65 group (30.7%). The clinical and pathological factors of the patients are summarized in Table 1.
2. Treatment and response
Overall, 259 patients (93.5%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with an anthracycline or taxane regimen, while 18 (6.5%) received a cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil regimen. The median number of chemotherapy courses was three (range, 2 to 8). After neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 35 patients (12.6%) achieved a pathologic complete response of breast tumor and axillary lymph nodes.
All patients underwent mastectomy and axillary lymph node dissection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Following surgery, 265 patients received adjuvant chemotherapy (95.7%), 255 of whom received an anthracycline or taxane regimen. Radiotherapy was performed in the ipsilateral chest wall and supraclavicular and infraclavicular lymph drainage area in 156 patients (54.2%). Patients with positive hormone receptors received endocrine therapy. Premenopausal patients were treated with tamoxifen, and postmenopausal patients were treated with tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor. None of the patients with HER2+ cancers received trastuzumab.
3. Survival and disease progression
The median follow-up duration was 49.5 months (range, 6 to 144 months), during which time 53 patients (19.1%) experienced locoregional recurrence, 134 (48.4%) experienced distant metastases, and 105 (37.9%) died of breast cancer. In addition, two patients died of cardiovascular disease. The overall 5-year and 10-year LRFS were 78.4% and 70.9%, the 5-year and 10-year DMFS were 51.7% and 38.9%, the 5-year and 10-year DFS were 50.0% and 37.0%, and the 5-year and 10-year OS were 62.0% and 51.7%, respectively.
4. Univariate and multivariate analyses
The results of univariate analysis of clinicopathologic factors and prognostic factors are shown in Table 1. Both ypN stage and LNR were significant prognostic factors of LRFS, DMFS, DFS, and OS. The Kaplan-Meier survival curves of ypN and LNR are shown in Fig. 1. Statistically significant variables in the univariate survival analysis were entered into the multivariate Cox proportional hazards model (Table 2). The LNR and ypN were input into the model simultaneously as covariates. The results showed that LNR remained a significant independent prognostic factor of LRFS, DMFS, DFS, and OS (p < 0.05), while ypN was no longer a significant prognostic factor (p > 0.05).
Retrospective analysis of 277 Chinese female patients who underwent total mastectomy after neoadjuvant therapy revealed that higher LNR was associated with a poorer prognosis.
Previous investigations of the prognostic value of LNR in breast cancer have focused on patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy, while few studies of patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy have been conducted. Indeed, there have been only two comprehensive studies of the prognostic value of LNR in breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy to date. Keam et al. [5] analyzed 205 patients who received docetaxel and doxorubicin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy and found a LNR > 0.25 to be an independent prognostic factor of relapse-free survival and OS, which was superior to that of the ypN stage. Saxena et al. [18] studied 314 breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy using the same LNR grouping method employed in our study and found that LNR was an independent prognostic factor of survival, and its prognostic value was poorer than that of ypN stage. Our results showed that the prognostic value of LNR was significantly better than that of ypN stage. Although findings regarding whether the prognostic value of LNR is superior to that of ypN stage differed, all study findings suggest that LNR is an important prognostic factor.
In the current AJCC staging system for breast cancer, the pN stage is based on the number of positive axillary lymph nodes. However, it has been reported that, when compared with breast cancer patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy, more patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy had less than 10 axillary lymph nodes removed at dissection [8,9]. Therefore, it is believed that neoadjuvant chemotherapy may affect the actual lymph node status, and is not conducive to estimation of prognosis and guidance of subsequent adjuvant therapy.
Although the value of axillary lymph node status prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for estimating prognosis and guiding subsequent adjuvant therapy remains controversial in breast cancer patients [19], our results indicate that LNR can reflect axillary lymph node status in post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy breast cancer patients more accurately than pN stage. Veronesi et al. [20] suggested that pN stage be accompanied by the LNR to accurately reflect lymph node status, and that clinicians should have a more intuitive understanding of the LNR. Moreover, the use of the LNR may allow the effects of variation in lymph node dissection level among surgeons to be reduced [21].
Different studies have adopted various LNR cutoff points for grouping [10,21-23]. Vinh-Hung et al. [10] reported that the cutoff points of 0.20 and 0.65 have better prognostic value than pN stage in breast cancer patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The present study also revealed that the prognostic value of these LNR cutoff values for grouping was better than that of yN stage. The International Nodal Ratio Working Group is investigating the prognostic value of LNR in breast cancer [23,24]. Hopefully, their work can confirm the prognostic value of LNR in breast cancer and provide a consensus regarding the optimal LNR cutoff values.
It should be noted that this study had a number of limitations. First, it was a single-center retrospective study; however, the results confirm the growing body of literature that supports the prognostic value of LNR in breast cancer. Second, patients with HER2 positivity exceeded 40% in present study due to selection bias, and the results of this study suggest that HER2 significantly affected the prognosis of patients, but patients in this study did not undergo trastuzumab therapy and it is unclear whether targeted therapy would change these findings. Finally, LNR was evaluated after a median of three cycles of chemotherapy in the present study, and most patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. It is uncertain whether LNR after three cycles of chemotherapy or more is useful.
In conclusion, our findings demonstrated that integrated use of the LNR and ypN in stage II/III breast cancer patients improved predicted prognosis and may facilitate selection of adjuvant therapy.

Conflict of interest relevant to this article was not reported.

Acknowledgements
This study was supported by a grant from the Sci-Tech Office of Guangdong Province (No. 2008B060600019), the Youth Foundation of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University (No. XYY2012005) and the Education Scientific Research Foundation of Young Teachers of Fujian Province (No. JB13131).
Fig. 1.
Comparison of Kaplan-Meier curves for different lymph node ratios (LNRs) and ypN stages. (A, E) Locoregional recurrence-free survival. (B, F) Distant metastasis-free survival. (C, G) Disease-free survival. (D, H) Overall survival. pN (A-D) and LNR (E-H).
crt-2014-039f1.gif
Table 1.
Patient characteristics and univariate survival analyses of prognostic factors
Characteristic No. (%) LRFS
 DMFS
 DFS
 OS
5-Year (%) p-value 5-Year (%) p-value 5-Year (%) p-value 5-Year (%) p-value
Age (yr) 0.720 0.014a) 0.021a) 0.070
 ≤ 35 45 (16.2) 83.7 38.9 39.0 52.7
 > 35 232 (83.8) 77.5 54.4 52.3 63.9
Menstrual status 0.234 0.300 0.181 0.527
 Premenopausal 184 (66.4) 81.8 55.2 54.2 64.5
 Postmenopausal 93 (33.6) 71.5 44.6 41.5 56.8
Clinical stage 0.012a) 0.040a) 0.009a) 0.038a)
 IIA 5 (1.8) 53.3 40.0 40.0 80.0
 IIB 25 (9.0) 93.3 72.6 72.6 83.3
 IIIA 127 (45.8) 80.4 51.4 50.8 66.3
 IIIB 79 (28.6) 79.9 48.2 47.1 53.1
 IIIC 41 (14.8) 63.4 48.1 40.7 49.2
Pathologic T stage 0.094 0.002a) 0.005a) 0.008a)
 ypT0 11 (4.0) 100.0 88.9 88.9 100.0
 ypT1 33 (11.9) 82.5 61.5 55.6 74.6
 ypT2 116 (41.9) 78.4 56 53.5 65.5
 ypT3 61 (22.0) 77.6 38.5 38.6 54.5
 ypT4 56 (20.2) 70.6 42.9 43.5 45.4
Pathologic N stage 0.004a) < 0.001a) < 0.001a) < 0.001a)
 ypN0 43 (15.5) 87.7 80.5 80.6 86.7
 ypN1 64 (23.1) 86.4 65.5 62.4 78.4
 ypN2 89 (32.2) 78.2 44.1 42.1 52.7
 ypN3 81 (29.2) 66.7 34.6 33.5 47.5
Lymph node ratio 0.002a) < 0.001a) < 0.001a) < 0.001a)
 0 43 (15.5) 88.4 81.6 81.6 87.4
 0.01-0.20 57 (20.6) 85.7 73.4 69.6 84.5
 0.21-0.65 92 (33.2) 80.5 45.9 43.9 58.5
 > 0.65 85 (30.7) 64.2 28.3 27.2 39.0
ER status 0.248 0.097 0.140 0.208
 Negative 145 (52.3) 74.7 47.3 46.1 58.9
 Positive 132 (47.7) 81.8 56.3 54.1 65.1
PR status 0.860 0.873 0.837 0.737
 Negative 123 (44.4) 76.9 50.8 48.5 60.3
 Positive 154 (55.6) 79.4 52.4 51.1 63.4
HER2 status 0.900 0.003a) 0.007a) 0.029a)
 Negative 160 (57.8) 78.6 56.9 54.8 68.3
 Positive 117 (42.2) 76.8 43.4 42.4 57.7
Molecular subtype 0.061 0.071 0.093 0.158
 Luminal A 108 (39.0) 76.3 54.4 51.8 63.0
 Luminal B 64 (23.1) 85.9 49.9 49.9 62.6
 HER2 enriched 53 (19.1) 67.1 39.6 37.8 49.8
 Triple negative 52 (18.8) 85.8 60.6 58.7 68.1
Adjuvant PMRT 0.199 0.301 0.322 0.546
 No 121 (45.8) 74.7 54.3 53.7 63.2
 Yes 156 (54.2) 81.6 49.7 47.1 61.0

LRFS, locoregional recurrence-free survival; DMFS, distant metastasis-free survival; DFS, disease-free survival; OS, overall survival; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor; PMRT, postmastectomy radiotherapy.

a) p < 0.05 indicates a significant difference.

Table 2.
Multivariate analysis of survival
Characteristic LRFS
 DMFS
 DFS
 OS
HR (95% CI) p-value HR (95% CI) p-value HR (95% CI) p-value HR (95% CI) p-value
Age - - 0.670 (0.410-1.095 0.110 0.670 (0.409-1.097) 0.111 - -
Clinical stage 1.364 (0.991-1.878) 0.057 1.028 (0.815-1.296) 0.818 1.099 (0.880-1.373) 0.405 1.175 (0.899-1.537) 0.238
Pathologic T stage - 1.121 (0.931-1.351) 0.227 1.092 (0.915-1.305) 0.330 1.165 (0.941-1.444) 0.161
Pathologic N stage 1.120 (0.626-2.004) 0.703 0.841 (0.570-1.240) 0.381 0.810 (0.555-1.181) 0.273 0.708 (0.447-1.122) 0.142
Lymph node ratio 1.600 (1.179-2.175) 0.003a) 1.845 (1.492-2.282) < 0.001a) 1.758 (1.435-2.154) < 0.001a) 1.782 (1.386-2.290) < 0.001a)
HER2 status - - 1.660 (1.143-2.411) 0.008a) 1.552 (1.078-2.233) 0.018a) 1.471 (0.955-2.266) 0.080

LRFS, locoregional recurrence-free survival; DMFS, distant metastasis-free survival; DFS, disease-free survival; OS, overall survival; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor.

a) p < 0.05 indicates a significant difference.

  • 1. Mauri D, Pavlidis N, Ioannidis JP. Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant systemic treatment in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:188–94. ArticlePubMed
  • 2. Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Smith R, Valero V, Gianni L, Eiermann W, et al. International expert panel on the use of primary (preoperative) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: review and recommendations. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2600–8. ArticlePubMed
  • 3. Estevez LG, Gradishar WJ. Evidence-based use of neoadjuvant taxane in operable and inoperable breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:3249–61. ArticlePubMed
  • 4. Shimizu C, Ando M, Kouno T, Katsumata N, Fujiwara Y. Current trends and controversies over pre-operative chemotherapy for women with operable breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2007;37:1–8. ArticlePubMed
  • 5. Keam B, Im SA, Kim HJ, Oh DY, Kim JH, Lee SH, et al. Clinical significance of axillary nodal ratio in stage II/III breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;116:153–60. ArticlePubMed
  • 6. Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E, Wieand S, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:2483–93. ArticlePubMed
  • 7. Baslaim MM, Al Malik OA, Al-Sobhi SS, Ibrahim E, Ezzat A, Ajarim D, et al. Decreased axillary lymph node retrieval in patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Am J Surg. 2002;184:299–301. ArticlePubMed
  • 8. Belanger J, Soucy G, Sideris L, Leblanc G, Drolet P, Mitchell A, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in invasive breast cancer results in a lower axillary lymph node count. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206:704–8. ArticlePubMed
  • 9. Neuman H, Carey LA, Ollila DW, Livasy C, Calvo BF, Meyer AA, et al. Axillary lymph node count is lower after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Am J Surg. 2006;191:827–9. ArticlePubMed
  • 10. Vinh-Hung V, Verkooijen HM, Fioretta G, Neyroud-Caspar I, Rapiti E, Vlastos G, et al. Lymph node ratio as an alternative to pN staging in node-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1062–8. ArticlePubMed
  • 11. Danko ME, Bennett KM, Zhai J, Marks JR, Olson JA Jr. Improved staging in node-positive breast cancer patients using lymph node ratio: results in 1,788 patients with long-term follow-up. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210:797–805. ArticlePubMed
  • 12. Chagpar AB, Camp RL, Rimm DL. Lymph node ratio should be considered for incorporation into staging for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3143–8. ArticlePubMed
  • 13. Ahn SH, Kim HJ, Lee JW, Gong GY, Noh DY, Yang JH, et al. Lymph node ratio and pN staging in patients with node-positive breast cancer: a report from the Korean breast cancer society. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;130:507–15. ArticlePubMed
  • 14. Wu SG, Chen Y, Sun JY, Li FY, Lin Q, Lin HX, et al. Using the lymph nodal ratio to predict the risk of locoregional recurrence in lymph node-positive breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy without radiation therapy. Radiat Oncol. 2013;8:119.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 15. Wu SG, He ZY, Li Q, Sun JY, Li FY, Lin Q, et al. Prognostic value of metastatic axillary lymph node ratio for Chinese breast cancer patients. PLoS One. 2013;8:e61410ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 16. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ, et al. Strategies for subtypes: dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:1736–47. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 17. Houssami N, Macaskill P, von Minckwitz G, Marinovich ML, Mamounas E. Meta-analysis of the association of breast cancer subtype and pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:3342–54. ArticlePubMed
  • 18. Saxena N, Hartman M, Aziz R, Rapiti E, Bhoo Pathy N, Lim SE, et al. Prognostic value of axillary lymph node status after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: Results from a multicentre study. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:1186–92. ArticlePubMed
  • 19. Jeruss JS, Mittendorf EA, Tucker SL, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Buchholz TA, Sahin AA, et al. Staging of breast cancer in the neoadjuvant setting. Cancer Res. 2008;68:6477–81. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 20. Veronesi U, Zurrida S, Viale G, Galimberti V, Arnone P, Nole F. Rethinking TNM: a breast cancer classification to guide to treatment and facilitate research. Breast J. 2009;15:291–5. ArticlePubMed
  • 21. Truong PT, Woodward WA, Thames HD, Ragaz J, Olivotto IA, Buchholz TA. The ratio of positive to excised nodes identifies high-risk subsets and reduces inter-institutional differences in locoregional recurrence risk estimates in breast cancer patients with 1-3 positive nodes: an analysis of prospective data from British Columbia and the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68:59–65. ArticlePubMed
  • 22. Castrucci W, Lannin D, Haffty BG, Higgins SA, Moran MS. Using nodal ratios to predict risk of regional recurrences in patients treated with breast conservation therapy with 4 or more positive lymph nodes. ISRN Surg. 2011;2011:874814.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 23. Vinh-Hung V, Nguyen NP, Cserni G, Truong P, Woodward W, Verkooijen HM, et al. Prognostic value of nodal ratios in node-positive breast cancer: a compiled update. Future Oncol. 2009;5:1585–603. ArticlePubMed
  • 24. Woodward WA, Vinh-Hung V, Ueno NT, Cheng YC, Royce M, Tai P, et al. Prognostic value of nodal ratios in node-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2910–6. ArticlePubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • Prognosis and influencing factors of ER-positive, HER2-low breast cancer patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a retrospective study
      Lingfeng Tang, Linshan Jiang, Xiujie Shu, Yudi Jin, Haochen Yu, Shengchun Liu
      Scientific Reports.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Prognostic disparities in young patients based on breast cancer subtype: A population-based study from the SEER database
      Bing Chen, Xiaojuan Zhang, Yi Liu, Chuandong Wang
      Medicine.2023; 102(13): e33416.     CrossRef
    • The Effect of Lymph Node Harvest on Prognosis in Locally Advanced Middle-Low Rectal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy
      Zhuangbin Lin, Xiaobo Li, Jianyuan Song, Rong Zheng, Cheng Chen, Anchuan Li, Benhua Xu
      Frontiers in Oncology.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Breast Cancer Patients With Positive Apical or Infraclavicular/Ipsilateral Supraclavicular Lymph Nodes Should Be Excluded in the Application of the Lymph Node Ratio System
      Zhe Wang, Wei Chong, Huikun Zhang, Xiaoli Liu, Yawen Zhao, Zhifang Guo, Li Fu, Yongjie Ma, Feng Gu
      Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Is Pathologic Axillary Staging Valid If Lymph Nodes Are Less than 10 with Axillary Lymph Node Dissection after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy?
      Hee Jun Choi, Jai Min Ryu, Jun Ho Lee, Yoonju Bang, Jongwook Oh, Byung-Joo Chae, Seok Jin Nam, Seok Won Kim, Jeong Eon Lee, Se Kyung Lee, Jonghan Yu
      Journal of Clinical Medicine.2022; 11(21): 6564.     CrossRef
    • A novel nomogram for predicting locoregional recurrence risk in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and mastectomy
      Zhou Huang, Mei Shi, Wei-Hu Wang, Liang-Fang Shen, Yu Tang, Qing-Lin Rong, Li Zhu, Xiao-Bo Huang, Jian Tie, Jia-Yi Chen, Jun Zhang, Hong-Fen Wu, Jing Cheng, Min Liu, Chang-Ying Ma, Shu-Lian Wang, Ye-Xiong Li
      Radiotherapy and Oncology.2021; 161: 191.     CrossRef
    • Lymph node ratio as best prognostic factor in triple‐negative breast cancer patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy
      Gabriel A. De la Cruz‐Ku, Diego Chambergo‐Michilot, Bryan Valcarcel, Pamela Rebaza, Mecker Möller, Jhajaira M. Araujo, Daniel Enriquez, Zaida Morante, Cesar Razuri, Renato Luque, Antonella Saavedra, Eduardo Eyzaguirre, Maria Lujan, Naysha Noel, Joseph Pin
      The Breast Journal.2020; 26(9): 1659.     CrossRef
    • Development and validation of a nomogram incorporating axillary lymph node ratio to predict survival in node-positive breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy
      Jianguo Lai, Zihao Pan, Peixian Chen, Guolin Ye, Kai Chen, Fengxi Su
      Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology.2019; 49(1): 22.     CrossRef
    • Lymph node ratio as an alternative to pN staging for predicting prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer
      Dong Hui Cho, Soo Youn Bae, Ji Young You, Hong Kyu Kim, Young Woo Chang, Yoo Jin Choi, Sang Uk Woo, Gil Soo Son, Jae Bok Lee, Jeoung Won Bae, Seung Pil Jung
      The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences.2018; 34(6): 341.     CrossRef
    • Ganglio secundario como indicador de linfadenectomía axilar en pacientes afectas de cáncer de mama
      Manel Cremades, Mireia Torres, Montse Solà, Jordi Navinés, Icíar Pascual, Antonio Mariscal, Albert Caballero, Eva Castellà, Miguel Ángel Luna, Joan Francesc Julián
      Cirugía Española.2017; 95(9): 536.     CrossRef
    • Secondary Node Analysis as an Indicator for Axillary Lymphadenectomy in Breast Cancer Patients
      Manel Cremades, Mireia Torres, Montse Solà, Jordi Navinés, Icíar Pascual, Antonio Mariscal, Albert Caballero, Eva Castellà, Miguel Ángel Luna, Joan Francesc Julián
      Cirugía Española (English Edition).2017; 95(9): 536.     CrossRef
    • Risk factors of locoregional relapse in locally advanced breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy following mastectomy and radiotherapy
      Liang Huang, Sheng Chen, Wentao T. Yang, Zhiming Shao
      Oncotarget.2017; 8(24): 39703.     CrossRef
    • Lymph Node Ratio Analysis After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy is Prognostic in Hormone Receptor-Positive and Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
      Jacqueline Tsai, Danielle Bertoni, Tina Hernandez-Boussard, Melinda L. Telli, Irene L. Wapnir
      Annals of Surgical Oncology.2016; 23(10): 3310.     CrossRef
    • Number of negative lymph nodes as a prognostic factor for ypN0-N1 breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy
      Fei Xin, Yue Yu, Zheng-Jun Yang, Li-Kun Hou, Jie-Fei Mao, Li Xia, Xin Wang, Xu-Chen Cao
      Tumor Biology.2016; 37(6): 8445.     CrossRef

    • PubReader PubReader
    • ePub LinkePub Link
    • Cite
      CITE
      export Copy Download
      Close
      Download Citation
      Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
      Format:
      • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
      • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
      Include:
      • Citation for the content below
      Using the Lymph Node Ratio to Evaluate the Prognosis of Stage II/III Breast Cancer Patients Who Received Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Mastectomy
      Cancer Res Treat. 2015;47(4):757-764.   Published online December 8, 2014
      DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2014.039
      Close
    • XML DownloadXML Download
    • 0
    Using the Lymph Node Ratio to Evaluate the Prognosis of Stage II/III Breast Cancer Patients Who Received Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Mastectomy
    Image
    Fig. 1. Comparison of Kaplan-Meier curves for different lymph node ratios (LNRs) and ypN stages. (A, E) Locoregional recurrence-free survival. (B, F) Distant metastasis-free survival. (C, G) Disease-free survival. (D, H) Overall survival. pN (A-D) and LNR (E-H).

    Fig. 1.

    Using the Lymph Node Ratio to Evaluate the Prognosis of Stage II/III Breast Cancer Patients Who Received Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Mastectomy
    Characteristic No. (%) LRFS
    		 DMFS
    		 DFS
    		 OS
    5-Year (%) p-value 5-Year (%) p-value 5-Year (%) p-value 5-Year (%) p-value
    Age (yr) 0.720 0.014a) 0.021a) 0.070
     ≤ 35 45 (16.2) 83.7 38.9 39.0 52.7
     > 35 232 (83.8) 77.5 54.4 52.3 63.9
    Menstrual status 0.234 0.300 0.181 0.527
     Premenopausal 184 (66.4) 81.8 55.2 54.2 64.5
     Postmenopausal 93 (33.6) 71.5 44.6 41.5 56.8
    Clinical stage 0.012a) 0.040a) 0.009a) 0.038a)
     IIA 5 (1.8) 53.3 40.0 40.0 80.0
     IIB 25 (9.0) 93.3 72.6 72.6 83.3
     IIIA 127 (45.8) 80.4 51.4 50.8 66.3
     IIIB 79 (28.6) 79.9 48.2 47.1 53.1
     IIIC 41 (14.8) 63.4 48.1 40.7 49.2
    Pathologic T stage 0.094 0.002a) 0.005a) 0.008a)
     ypT0 11 (4.0) 100.0 88.9 88.9 100.0
     ypT1 33 (11.9) 82.5 61.5 55.6 74.6
     ypT2 116 (41.9) 78.4 56 53.5 65.5
     ypT3 61 (22.0) 77.6 38.5 38.6 54.5
     ypT4 56 (20.2) 70.6 42.9 43.5 45.4
    Pathologic N stage 0.004a) < 0.001a) < 0.001a) < 0.001a)
     ypN0 43 (15.5) 87.7 80.5 80.6 86.7
     ypN1 64 (23.1) 86.4 65.5 62.4 78.4
     ypN2 89 (32.2) 78.2 44.1 42.1 52.7
     ypN3 81 (29.2) 66.7 34.6 33.5 47.5
    Lymph node ratio 0.002a) < 0.001a) < 0.001a) < 0.001a)
     0 43 (15.5) 88.4 81.6 81.6 87.4
     0.01-0.20 57 (20.6) 85.7 73.4 69.6 84.5
     0.21-0.65 92 (33.2) 80.5 45.9 43.9 58.5
     > 0.65 85 (30.7) 64.2 28.3 27.2 39.0
    ER status 0.248 0.097 0.140 0.208
     Negative 145 (52.3) 74.7 47.3 46.1 58.9
     Positive 132 (47.7) 81.8 56.3 54.1 65.1
    PR status 0.860 0.873 0.837 0.737
     Negative 123 (44.4) 76.9 50.8 48.5 60.3
     Positive 154 (55.6) 79.4 52.4 51.1 63.4
    HER2 status 0.900 0.003a) 0.007a) 0.029a)
     Negative 160 (57.8) 78.6 56.9 54.8 68.3
     Positive 117 (42.2) 76.8 43.4 42.4 57.7
    Molecular subtype 0.061 0.071 0.093 0.158
     Luminal A 108 (39.0) 76.3 54.4 51.8 63.0
     Luminal B 64 (23.1) 85.9 49.9 49.9 62.6
     HER2 enriched 53 (19.1) 67.1 39.6 37.8 49.8
     Triple negative 52 (18.8) 85.8 60.6 58.7 68.1
    Adjuvant PMRT 0.199 0.301 0.322 0.546
     No 121 (45.8) 74.7 54.3 53.7 63.2
     Yes 156 (54.2) 81.6 49.7 47.1 61.0
    Characteristic LRFS
    		 DMFS
    		 DFS
    		 OS
    HR (95% CI) p-value HR (95% CI) p-value HR (95% CI) p-value HR (95% CI) p-value
    Age - - 0.670 (0.410-1.095 0.110 0.670 (0.409-1.097) 0.111 - -
    Clinical stage 1.364 (0.991-1.878) 0.057 1.028 (0.815-1.296) 0.818 1.099 (0.880-1.373) 0.405 1.175 (0.899-1.537) 0.238
    Pathologic T stage - 1.121 (0.931-1.351) 0.227 1.092 (0.915-1.305) 0.330 1.165 (0.941-1.444) 0.161
    Pathologic N stage 1.120 (0.626-2.004) 0.703 0.841 (0.570-1.240) 0.381 0.810 (0.555-1.181) 0.273 0.708 (0.447-1.122) 0.142
    Lymph node ratio 1.600 (1.179-2.175) 0.003a) 1.845 (1.492-2.282) < 0.001a) 1.758 (1.435-2.154) < 0.001a) 1.782 (1.386-2.290) < 0.001a)
    HER2 status - - 1.660 (1.143-2.411) 0.008a) 1.552 (1.078-2.233) 0.018a) 1.471 (0.955-2.266) 0.080
    Table 1. Patient characteristics and univariate survival analyses of prognostic factors

    LRFS, locoregional recurrence-free survival; DMFS, distant metastasis-free survival; DFS, disease-free survival; OS, overall survival; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor; PMRT, postmastectomy radiotherapy.

    p < 0.05 indicates a significant difference.

    Table 2. Multivariate analysis of survival

    LRFS, locoregional recurrence-free survival; DMFS, distant metastasis-free survival; DFS, disease-free survival; OS, overall survival; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor.

    p < 0.05 indicates a significant difference.

    Table 1.

    Table 2.

    Cancer Res Treat : Cancer Research and Treatment
    © Korean Cancer Association.
    Close layer
    TOP