Clinical Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Pathologic N3 Breast Cancer Treated With Modern Standard Treatments

Yu, Jeong Il; Park, Won; Choi, Doo Ho; Huh, Seung Jae; Nam, Seok Jin; Kim, Seok Won; Lee, Jeong Eon; Kil, Won Ho; Im, Young‐Hyuck; Ahn, Jin Seok; Park, Yeon Hee; Cho, Eun Yun

doi:10.1016/j.clbc.2015.06.004

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This discrepancy is most likely from the perspective of clinicopathological features. Patients with IMLN metastasis were reported to have favorable outcomes as a result of lower positive ALN involvement, 28 which was consistent with the results of the present study. Besides, IMLN drains approximately 25% of all lymphatics of the breast, 29 , 30 which is the first station of lymph node metastasis in breast cancer, similar to ALN.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…In 2010, Park et al 17 assessed the outcomes of 55 patients with cN3 and reported that the 5-year DFS rates for patients with cN3a, cN3b, and cN3c disease were 62%, 67%, and 51%, and the 5-year OS rates for patients with cN3a, cN3b, and cN3c disease were 80%, 80%, and 78%, respectively. Thereafter in 2015, Yu et al 28 reported the clinical outcomes of 89 patients with pN3 who received current standard management, in which the 5-year DFS rates were 60.3%, 77.8% and 46.3% for patients with ICLN, IMLN, and SCLN, respectively. Although there was no statistically significant difference in prognosis between subgroups regarding their results, a trend was observed that patients with N3b had a better prognosis than those with N3a.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

<p>Clinical Outcomes of N3 Breast Cancer: A Real-World Study of a Single Institution and the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database</p>

Liao

et al. 2020

CMAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Although stage IIIC (any TN3M0) breast cancer is known to have a dismal prognosis, the clinical outcome of current standard management and the prognostic differences between N3a, N3b and N3c remain to be further investigated. Material and Methods: Data from our center on pathologic N3 (pN3) (n=284) breast cancer and the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database on clinical N3 (cN3) (n=15,291) and M1 (n=23,623) breast cancer between January 2004 and December 2015 were systematically analyzed for clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes. Results: In our institution, patients with pN3c had the worst survival, with 5-year OS and DFS rates of 52.4% and 41.5%, respectively. Patients with pN3b had a relatively good prognosis, with a 5-year OS rate of 75.3% vs 63.9% for the pN3a group (p=0.045). For DFS, the 5-year survival rate was 63.1% in the pN3b group compared with 40.3% in the pN3a group (p=0.030). In the US SEER database, patients with cN3c had the worst survival in the cN3 group, but the prognosis of cN3c was much better than that of M1. Similarly, patients with cN3b had a better prognosis compared with patients in other groups, with a 5-year OS rate of 68.9% vs 61.9% for the cN3a group (p<0.001) and a 5-year BCSS rate of 73.4% vs 67.1% for the cN3a group (p<0.001). Conclusion: Breast cancer patients with N3c had the worst clinical outcomes, while the prognosis of N3b patients was better than that of N3a patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>Clinical Outcomes of N3 Breast Cancer: A Real-World Study of a Single Institution and the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database</p>

Liao

et al. 2020

CMAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent studies investigating the clinical outcome of breast cancer patients with pathologic N3 are summarized in Table 3 [6,[8][9][10][11][12][13]. More recent, studies have reported more improved outcome 70% to 87% of 5-year OS rates and about 35% to 72% DFS rates which was resulted by more advanced standard treatment.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Molecular subtype is concerned the significant prognostic factor in breast cancer. However the results in N3 breast cancer showed the diverse results [10,12,13]. Yu et al [10] reported that molecular subtype was associated with DFS only in univariate analysis not in multivariate analysis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However the results in N3 breast cancer showed the diverse results [10,12,13]. Yu et al [10] reported that molecular subtype was associated with DFS only in univariate analysis not in multivariate analysis. In that study, although the patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) enrich breast cancer showed the most excellent prognosis, the patients with triple-negative breast cancer showed the poorest prognosis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The prognosis factors among breast cancer patients with extensive axillary lymph node metastasis

Kim

Jung

et al. 2018

Korean J Clin Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was designed to retrospectively identify prognostic factors of survival among breast cancer patients with 10 or more metastatic lymph nodes (LNs). Methods: The study included 58 patients with 10 or more metastatic LNs who received standard treatment from January 2005 to December 2015. To identify the prognostic factors, we analyzed the difference of disease-free survival (DFS) according to clinicopathologic factors. Results: The 5-year DFS and overall survival rates in all patients were 55% and 69%, respectively. Tumor size, number of metastatic LNs and ratio of metastatic to total LNs were associated with poorer prognosis. DFS was significantly poorer in patients with >15 than ≤15 metastatic LNs (hazard ratio [HR], 4.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-15.32) and with LN ratio >0.64 than ≤0.64 (HR, 26.13; 95% CI, 3.16-215.80) A scoring system based on these factors was significantly prognostic of survival outcomes. Conclusion: This study identified factors of survival in breast cancer patients with extensive LN metastasis. Patients with unfavorable factors may require modified management to improve their clinical outcomes.

show abstract

A multi-center cross-sectional investigation of the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer with synchronous ipsilateral supraclavicular lymph node metastases based on the CSBrs-009

Ai¹,

Sun²,

Wang

et al. 2023

Clin Transl Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Pathologic N3 Breast Cancer Treated With Modern Standard Treatments

Cited by 9 publications

References 22 publications

<p>Clinical Outcomes of N3 Breast Cancer: A Real-World Study of a Single Institution and the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database</p>

<p>Clinical Outcomes of N3 Breast Cancer: A Real-World Study of a Single Institution and the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database</p>

The prognosis factors among breast cancer patients with extensive axillary lymph node metastasis

A multi-center cross-sectional investigation of the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer with synchronous ipsilateral supraclavicular lymph node metastases based on the CSBrs-009

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About