title: Does information from axillary dissection change treatment in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer? An algorithm for assessment of impact of axillary dissection.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The authors assessed the impact of axillary dissection on adjuvant systemic therapy recommendations in patients with breast cancer.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  With increasing use of systemic therapy in node-negative women and the desire to reduce treatment morbidity and cost, the need for axillary dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer has been challenged.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two hundred eighty-two women with clinically negative axillae were analyzed using a model treatment algorithm. Systemic therapy was assigned with and without data from axillary dissection. Treatment shifts based on axillary dissection data were scored.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Twenty-seven percent of clinically node-negative women had pathologically positive nodes. Eight percent of T1a and 10% of T1b tumors had positive nodes and would have been undertreated without axillary dissection. Seven percent of premenopausal women with tumors < 1 cm and 13% with tumors > or = 1 cm had treatment changed by axillary dissection. For women 50 to 60 years of age, 10% with tumors < 1 cm, 17% with tumors 1 to 2 cm with positive prognostic features, and 4% with poor prognostic features had significant treatment shifts after axillary dissection. For clinically node-negative women older than 60 years of age not eligible for chemotherapy, only 3% of those with tumors < 1 cm and none of those with tumors > or = 1 cm had their treatment changed by findings at axillary dissection. Treatment shifts based on axillary dissection were larger if the treatment algorithm allowed for more varied or more aggressive treatment options.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Data obtained from axillary dissection will alter adjuvant systemic therapy regimen in a significant number of clinically node-negative women younger than 60 years of age and for older women eligible to receive chemotherapy.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston 02114, USA.
authors.forename: E C
authors.initials: EC
authors.lastname: Dees
authors.forename: L N
authors.initials: LN
authors.lastname: Shulman
authors.forename: W W
authors.initials: WW
authors.lastname: Souba
authors.forename: B L
authors.initials: BL
authors.lastname: Smith
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000465:Algorithms; D000971:Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols / Q000627:therapeutic use; D001365:Axilla; D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology* / Q000628:therapy*; D017024:Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; D003131:Combined Modality Therapy; D003520:Cyclophosphamide / Q000008:administration & dosage; D004317:Doxorubicin / Q000008:administration & dosage; D005188:False Negative Reactions; D005260:Female; D005472:Fluorouracil / Q000008:administration & dosage; D018380:Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; D006801:Humans; D008197:Lymph Node Excision; D008198:Lymph Nodes / Q000473:pathology*; D008207:Lymphatic Metastasis; D015409:Mastectomy, Radical; D015412:Mastectomy, Segmental; D008727:Methotrexate / Q000008:administration & dosage; D008875:Middle Aged; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D018299:Neoplasms, Ductal, Lobular, and Medullary / Q000473:pathology* / Q000556:secondary / Q000628:therapy*; D011379:Prognosis; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D013629:Tamoxifen / Q000008:administration & dosage
chemical_list: D013629:Tamoxifen; D004317:Doxorubicin; D003520:Cyclophosphamide; D005472:Fluorouracil; D008727:Methotrexate