Upfront Axillary Surgical Management in Breast Cancer
Upfront Axillary Surgical Management: Remaining Questions
Chelsea Marin¹, Alissa Huston²˒³, Anna Weiss¹˒³*
- Division of Surgical Oncology,Department of Surgery, University of Rochester, Rochester NY
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester NY
- Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester, Rochester NY
OPEN ACCESS
PUBLISHED:30 November 2024
CITATION: Marin, C., Huston, A., et al., 2024. Upfront axillary surgical management: remaining questions. Medical Research Archives, [online] 12(11).
https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v12i11.6045
COPYRIGHT: © 2024 European Society of Medicine. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
DOI https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v12i11.6045
ISSN 2375-1924
ABSTRACT
Early breast cancer is treated with curative intent by a network of incredibly interconnected disciplines. There are certain points in each discipline’s decision-making that can affect one of the others, and one such point is axillary surgery. Because removing all the lymph nodes from the cancer-containing area historically provided the most accurate lymph node information to other disciplines, standard-of-care axillary surgery had been removal of all axillary lymph nodes with an axillary lymph node dissection (ALND).
The benefit of an accurate ALND was soon outweighed, though, by its plethora of associated morbidities. This sparked numerous landmark clinical trials that ultimately demonstrated the safety of ALND omission. Following these trials there has been a trend toward de-escalating axillary surgery whenever possible.
This review will explore the remaining questions in upfront axillary surgical management, specifically focusing on hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer patients, and the accompanying challenges for systemic therapy administration decisions.
Introduction
Early breast cancer refers to breast cancer that has not metastasized and is treated with curative intent. This curative treatment is accomplished by a network of incredibly interconnected disciplines (i.e., radiology, pathology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, and radiation oncology) that work together to obtain the best outcomes for the patients. There are certain points in each discipline’s decision-making that can affect one of the others, and one such point is axillary surgery.
Upfront axillary surgical management is the axillary surgery performed when surgery is the first treatment received, i.e., the patient is not treated with any pre-operative systemic therapy or radiation therapy. Early on in breast cancer evidence-based practice, it was proven that lymph node involvement conferred poorer outcomes¹. During this time, the presence of single lymph node metastasis was a major indication for treating a patient with chemotherapy and soon became an indication for radiation therapy as well²,³. Although there have been advances since then (i.e., it is no longer a “yes/no” decision), information obtained by axillary surgery (i.e., the number of lymph node metastases) still guides systemic and radiation therapy recommendations.
Because removing all the lymph nodes from the cancer-containing breast provides the most accurate lymph node information to other disciplines, standard-of-care axillary surgery has been removal of all axillary lymph nodes with an axillary lymph node dissection (ALND).
The benefit of an accurate ALND was soon outweighed, though, by its plethora of associated morbidities, including lymphedema, range of motion issues, paresthesia, and pain⁴. A more selective approach toward axillary surgery, the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), was then tested, and despite a 10% false negative rate, the SLNB appeared safe⁵–⁷. This was shown in a number of studies whereby patients who were randomized to SLNB and subsequent ALND only if positive lymph nodes were detected fared as well as patients who underwent automatic ALND. Later, it was proven that patients with positive sentinel lymph nodes may not need an ALND, and the body of literature has grown to support ALND omission for most clinically node-negative (cN0, i.e., no evidence of nodal disease by physical exam or axillary imaging, if obtained) but pathologically node-positive breast cancer patients [REF]⁸–¹².
Although this has been beneficial for patients and their quality of life, medical oncologists have been faced with the difficult task of having to make systemic therapy recommendations based on less pathological nodal information. This narrative review will explore the remaining questions in upfront axillary surgical management, specifically focusing on hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer patients, and the accompanying challenges for systemic therapy administration decisions.
Clinically lymph node-negative patients
The cN0 patient has seen the most success in avoiding unnecessary axillary surgery. Several landmark clinical trials have shown that ALND omission is safe in cN0 patients with 1–2 positive sentinel lymph nodes on pathology (pN1(sn))⁸–¹². IBCSG 23-01 was a multicenter randomized trial that found that cN0 women with sentinel node micrometastatic disease derived no benefit from cALND, and that ALND led to significantly worse adverse effects⁸. Similar results were shown in AATRM trial, whereby there was no difference in disease-free survival among women with micrometastatic sentinel node disease who underwent SLNB alone versus SLNB with cALND⁹.
ACOSOG Z0011 compared cALND to no further treatment after SLNB among patients with pN1(sn) disease; at 10-year follow-up, SLNB alone was noninferior to cALND in terms of overall survival¹⁰. Finally, in both the AMAROS and OTOASOR trial, women with cN0 pN1(sn) breast cancer were randomized to cALND versus RNI, with results from both trials showing that RNI was as effective as cALND¹¹,¹².
The omission of ALND was proven safe, first in ACOSOG Z0011 patients who underwent upfront surgery with breast conservation followed by whole breast irradiation, then over time trial eligibility broadened to include mastectomy patients (i.e., IBCSG 23-01 and AMAROS)⁸–¹⁰. However, many patient groups were still underrepresented. For example, though mastectomy patients were included in IBCSG 23-01 and AMAROS, they only comprised 9–17% of the trial populations.
In a recent publication of the SENOMAC trial, SLNB alone was found to be non-inferior to cALND in a more inclusive cohort, and now patients with extracapsular extension, relatively higher volume lymph node metastases, and those who undergo mastectomy are well-represented¹³.
The most recent landmark clinical trial among cN0 patients, the Sentinel Node vs Observation After Axillary Ultra-Sound or “SOUND” trial, reported that omission of axillary surgery altogether can be safe¹⁴. This has been previously reported in an older, frail population, but the SOUND trial enrolled patients of any age to SLNB or no axillary surgery¹⁵. All patients had to have a negative axillary ultrasound, and if there were suspicious lymph nodes on imaging, they had to be biopsy-proven negative.
Comparing 708 patients enrolled to SLNB and 697 enrolled to no axillary surgery, 5-year distant disease-free survival was similar at 97.7% and 98.0%, respectively (non-inferiority p = 0.02)¹⁴. Some institutions have implemented the SOUND trial, while others are awaiting results from the INSEMA trial (NCT02466737), which has a similar design but a much larger sample size of 7,095.
Clinically lymph node-positive patients
The last group that is undergoing frequent ALND is the clinically lymph node-positive (cN1) patient. The most common way to avoid ALND in the cN1 patient is to administer pre-operative or neoadjuvant chemotherapy, perform SLNB to assess response, and omit ALND for patients for whom neoadjuvant chemotherapy has managed to completely eradicate the pathologic nodal disease¹⁶–²⁰.
There are several weaknesses to this approach for patients with HR+ breast cancer. First, there is level I evidence that many HR+ patients will not gain survival benefit from chemotherapy based on genomic assay results; therefore, it is difficult to recommend chemotherapy just to clear the axilla²¹–²². That is accepting the morbidities of chemotherapy to avoid the morbidities of ALND—which seems like jumping from the frying pan to the fire.
Second, HR+ breast cancer exhibits low rates of nodal clearance after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Several studies show axillary lymph node pathologic complete response rates range from 10–35% only²³–²⁵. This is much lower in comparison to the higher risk breast cancer subtypes, e.g., HR-negative HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer patients, which may experience nodal pathologic complete response rates as high as 97%²⁶.
Taken together, this strategy involves giving toxic chemotherapy to achieve nodal clearance, but it only works less than a quarter of the time.
There is another way to avoid ALND in the cN1 population. The patients could be taken to upfront surgery if there were algorithms to safely omit ALND in this setting. Creation of algorithms requires clinical trial data. The “Tailored axillary surgery with or without axillary lymph node dissection followed by radiotherapy in patients with clinically node-positive breast cancer” or TAXIS trial (NCT03513614) is enrolling cN1 patients being treated with either upfront surgery or with preoperative chemotherapy then surgery, to targeted axillary surgery (i.e., removing the palpable/concerning lymph node disease only) versus ALND. Accrual to TAXIS is ongoing, and other trials will be needed before we can de-escalate ALND for cN1 patients.
Challenges for systemic therapy decisions – the real remaining questions
The breast surgery community has known since NSABP B-04 that omission of ALND is safe and does not impact overall or disease-free survival [REF]²⁶. In this trial, 1079 patients with cN0 disease were randomized to one of three groups: total mastectomy alone without any axillary treatment (n=365), total mastectomy plus axillary radiation (n=352), or radical mastectomy (n=362). After 25 years of follow-up, there were no significant differences in terms of overall or disease-free survival between groups²⁷.
However, NSABP B-04 was performed at a time when chemotherapy decisions were “simple” – all or none. Most patients received chemotherapy, especially if a lymph node was involved. While axillary surgery has been de-escalated, there has also been a push to de-escalate chemotherapy to avoid toxicities, including but not limited to peripheral neuropathy, cardiomyopathy, and alopecia.
The most impactful clinical trials to de-escalate chemotherapy to date are the TAILORx and RxPONDER trials²¹,²⁸. These trials used genomic assay results to stratify patients into risk groups and randomized certain groups to endocrine versus chemoendocrine therapy²⁹.
The TAILORx trial treated pathologically node-negative HR+ HER2− breast cancer patients with 21-gene recurrence scores (RS) indicating a low risk of systemic recurrence (RS 0–10) with endocrine therapy alone, and randomized patients with intermediate risk (RS 11–25) to endocrine versus chemoendocrine therapy³⁰. Among the 6,711 women with intermediate risk of systemic recurrence, the addition of chemotherapy provided no added benefit compared to endocrine therapy alone, especially in women over 50 years of age³⁰.
RxPONDER had a similar design to TAILORx, this time randomizing pathologically node-positive patients with a low-to-intermediate risk of recurrence (RS 0–25) to endocrine versus chemoendocrine therapy, but only if they had just 1–3 positive lymph nodes³¹. RxPONDER similarly found that many patients with low-to-intermediate risk of recurrence did not benefit from chemotherapy, specifically post-menopausal patients. However, patients with 4 or more positive lymph nodes were excluded from the trial, so these patients are routinely treated with chemotherapy and are thought to glean benefit.
While chemotherapy is being de-escalated, other systemic treatments are being escalated. For example, optimizing endocrine therapy regimens with the addition of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors has emerged as an effective and less toxic therapeutic strategy for HR+ breast cancer patients.
Notably, the monarchE trial showed that patients with “high-risk” HR+ breast cancer who were treated with a combination of adjuvant endocrine therapy and 2 years of CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib had improved invasive disease-free survival (hazard ratio 0.664 [95% confidence interval 0.578–0.762, p < 0.0001]) compared to patients treated with endocrine therapy alone³¹.
Patients were considered high-risk if they had 4 or more positive lymph nodes, or if they had 1–3 positive nodes and at least one high-risk feature (tumor ≥ 5 cm, grade 3 disease, or Ki67 staining level ≥ 20%). Of the 5,637 patients enrolled, most had prior chemotherapy either in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting, and hazard ratios in both subgroups significantly favored abemaciclib.
With the simultaneous de-escalation of axillary surgery and chemotherapy, there was concern that patients may be erroneously treated with de-escalated systemic regimens because the surgeon did not provide enough lymph node information, i.e., among patients with 1–3 positive sentinel lymph nodes, if ALND is not performed the medical oncologist may be apprehensive about chemotherapy omission because additional positive lymph nodes may be present, just not detected.
Additionally, to determine suitability for abemaciclib administration, complete nodal information is important; if 4 nodes are present but not detected, the patient may not be eligible for CDK4/6 inhibition. This led to many providers suggesting a return to ALND for patients who were able to avoid it previously, when chemotherapy was given to patients for just 1 positive lymph node.
What empowered the medical oncologists? Growing comfort with using genomic assay results to guide therapy, and rigorous research from both fields. One way to provide reassurance to medical oncologists would be to prove that anatomic information is less important than the prognostic information provided by genomic assays. The 8th edition American Joint Commission on Cancer staging system has provided some comfort for very low risk patients. Patients with an OncotypeDX recurrence score < 11 are stage IA regardless of their tumor size up to 5 cm because there is ample evidence that the genomically-derived prognostic information is more accurate than anatomic information³².
More work needs to be done among node-positive patients, though, such as hypothesis-generating work from the National Cancer Database comparing the prognostic impact of genomic assay results versus the prognostic impact of number of positive lymph nodes³³.
Another way to assuage fears would be to prove that it is unlikely that a patient has 4 or more positive lymph nodes. Shortly after the publication of RxPONDER, Kantor et al. examined the National Cancer Database and their institutional database for patients with cN0 disease and discovered that of patients who underwent ALND, only 12.0% and 4.9%, respectively, had greater than pN1 disease³⁴. Thus, only a small proportion of patients who “need” chemotherapy would potentially be missed if an ALND was not performed, and authors concluded that ALND should not be performed for cN0 patients strictly to determine systemic therapy.
A similar study by Farley et al. examined their institutional database and of 2,532 post-menopausal patients with cN0 breast cancer, only 2.4% had 4 or more positive lymph nodes³⁵. For cN0 patients, the Italian National Association of Breast Surgeons put out a position statement that routine ALND should not be performed to determine systemic therapy recommendations³⁶.
Among patients with cN1 disease, Weber et al., the principal investigator and team of the TAXIS trial, examined adjuvant systemic therapy among the upfront surgery cohort from TAXIS in a pre-planned secondary analysis; analysis revealed no difference in type of endocrine therapy administered or proportion of patients treated with chemotherapy between treatment arms (i.e., with or without ALND)³⁷. Unfortunately, they did not assess CDK4/6 inhibition use.
The SENOMAC trialists did examine ALND and resulting nodal information, and indirectly its impact on CDK4/6 inhibitor use. The trialists recently published an interesting pre-planned exploratory analysis from their trial³⁸. This trial enrolled the highest risk cN0 patient group to date, including patients with 1–2 lymph nodes containing macrometastases, and even additional nodes with micrometastases allowed, and randomized them to SLNB or ALND, with nearly all patients treated with RNI.
Thirty-five percent of patients in the ALND group had additional non-sentinel positive lymph nodes³⁸. Despite this additional nodal disease that remained in the evenly matched SLNB group, there was no difference in recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio 0.89 [95% confidence interval 0.66–1.19, p < 0.001 below the non-inferiority margin])³⁸.
The trialists then determined the number needed to treat with ALND to prevent one invasive disease-free event at 5 years per the monarchE trial data: 104 patients. One-hundred and four patients would need to be treated with ALND in order to prevent one disease event, and of those 104, 9 patients would develop severe or very severe arm symptoms at 1 year³⁸.
It is the authors’ opinions that an ALND should not be performed solely to provide anatomic information for systemic therapy decision-making³⁸.
Another development that will help avoid ALND as a means to obtain an accurate count of positive lymph nodes is the recent September 17, 2024 Federal Drug Administration approval of ribociclib as adjuvant therapy for HR+ node-positive breast cancer based on the European Society of Medical Oncology presentation of NATALEE’s 4-year follow-up data which showed a 5% absolute improvement in disease-free survival among patients taking endocrine therapy plus ribociclib over endocrine therapy alone³⁹,⁴⁰.
Similar to monarchE, the NATALEE trial (NCT03701334) included patients who were at an elevated risk of recurrence, but in contrast to monarchE even just one positive node was considered high-risk.
Now that we have established that we do not need an ALND to make systemic therapy decisions, do we need SLNB?
In a single institution series of 1,786 patients with HR+ cN0 breast cancer who underwent SLNB, only 14% had 1–3 positive lymph nodes and only 1% had 4 or more positive lymph nodes⁴¹. Among patients randomized to the SLNB/axillary surgery arm in the SOUND trial, these percentages were nearly identical. Only 13.7% had involved lymph nodes and the patients with cancer-containing lymph nodes then underwent ALND (per pre-Z0011 treatment algorithms), and ultimately 0.6% had 4 or more positive lymph nodes¹⁴.
This suggests that very few patients would miss out on chemotherapy if SLNB is omitted. It is important to remember, though, that 88% of SOUND patients were HR+ [REF]¹⁴. Omitting SLNB is not currently recommended for HER2+ or triple negative breast cancer because systemic therapy will be administered if there is lymph node involvement, and in these populations the exact number of involved lymph nodes is not crucial.
Special groups – extremes of age
Among the elderly, the Choosing Wisely guidelines have endorsed omission of SLNB among cN0 patients for several years⁴². Choosing Wisely was based on clinical trials comparing ALND to no axillary surgery in elderly patients that revealed equivalent survival; additionally, 45% of the patients enrolled to the CALGB 9343 clinical trial examining the omission of radiation did not undergo SLNB and outcomes were good⁴³,⁴⁴.
Lastly, the elderly are far less likely to be treated with chemotherapy, so axillary staging information is not needed. If there was any question before, the SOUND results should eliminate any doubt that omitting SLNB for the elderly is good practice. Although SOUND technically enrolled women of any age, the median age was 60 years, so we are left with questions regarding younger patients¹⁴.
At the other end of the spectrum, there is an increasing population of young breast cancer patients. Xu et al. have shown that there is a significant increase in HR+ disease among them⁴⁴. Oddly, we often “do more” for young patients, including performing more ALNDs, because we worry about axillary recurrence when a patient has decades to live; however, they do have longer to live, and this means they also have longer to suffer from the morbidities⁴⁵–⁴⁷.
The picture is a little mixed for pre-menopausal patients. RxPONDER showed that pre-menopausal patients benefited from chemotherapy if they even had just 1 lymph node positive, so RxPONDER did not successfully de-escalate chemotherapy in this population²¹. On the bright side, one would not need an ALND to determine an accurate lymph node count for chemotherapy decisions.
Regarding CDK4/6 inhibition, another ESMO presentation showed that the benefit of ribociclib was consistent among both post- and pre-menopausal patients⁴⁸. Thus, it appears an ALND would not be necessary to make CDK4/6 inhibitor decisions among pre-menopausal patients, either, and should be avoided.
Conclusions
There is no question that ALND should be avoided when there are safer, better tolerated alternatives like SLNB and axillary radiation. The real remaining question facing breast cancer patients, surgeons, and multi-disciplinary colleagues is how to make adjuvant treatment decisions based on limited information.
The extent of axillary surgery will continue to decrease, and we will increasingly be faced with this scenario. Future work should focus on identifying additional non-invasive biomarkers that may predict lymph node burden, or prognosis in the absence of pathologic lymph node information.
Conflict of Interest:
None
Funding Statement:
This work was not funded
Acknowledgements:
None
References
1. Ahmann DL, O’Fallon JR, Scanlon PW, et al. A preliminary assessment of factors associated with recurrent disease in a surgical adjuvant clinical trial for patients with breast cancer with special emphasis on the aggressiveness of therapy. Am J Clin Oncol. Aug 1982;5(4):371-81. doi:10.1097/ 00000421-198208000-00005
2. Dees EC, Shulman LN, Souba WW, Smith BL. Does information from axillary dissection change treatment in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer? An algorithm for assessment of impact of axillary dissection. Ann Surg. Sep 1997;226(3):279-86; discussion 286-7. doi:10.1097 /00000658-199709000-00007
3. Ragaz J, Jackson SM, Le N, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy in node-positive premenopausal women with breast cancer. N Engl J Med. Oct 2 1997;337(14):956-62. doi:10.1056/ NEJM199710023371402
4. Peintinger F, Reitsamer R, Stranzl H, Ralph G. Comparison of quality of life and arm complaints after axillary lymph node dissection vs sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer. Aug 18 2003;89(4):648-52. doi:10.1038 /sj.bjc.6601150
5. Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, et al. Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. Oct 2010;11(10):927-33. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70207-2
6. Veronesi U, Viale G, Paganelli G, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: ten-year results of a randomized controlled study. Ann Surg. Apr 2010;251(4):595-600. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013 e3181c0e92a
7. Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, et al. Technical outcomes of sentinel-lymph-node resection and conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer: results from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase III trial. Lancet Oncol. Oct 2007;8(10):881-8. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70278-4
8. Galimberti V, Cole BF, Zurrida S, et al. Axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with sentinel-node micrometastases (IBCSG 23-01): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. Apr 2013;14(4):297-305. doi:10.1016/S147 0-2045(13)70035-4
9. Sola M, Alberro JA, Fraile M, et al. Complete axillary lymph node dissection versus clinical follow-up in breast cancer patients with sentinel node micrometastasis: final results from the multicenter clinical trial AATRM 048/13/2000. Ann Surg Oncol. Jan 2013;20(1):120-7. doi:10.1245/s1 0434-012-2569-y
10. Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. Feb 9 2011;305(6):569-75. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.90
11. Donker M, van Tienhoven G, Straver ME, et al. Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer (EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. Nov 2014;15(12):1303-10. doi:10.1016/S14 70-2045(14)70460-7
12. Savolt A, Peley G, Polgar C, et al. Eight-year follow up result of the OTOASOR trial: The Optimal Treatment Of the Axilla – Surgery Or Radiotherapy after positive sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer: A randomized, single centre, phase III, non-inferiority trial. Eur J Surg Oncol. Apr 2017;43(4):672-679. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2016.12.011
13. de Boniface J, Filtenborg Tvedskov T, Ryden L, et al. Omitting Axillary Dissection in Breast Cancer with Sentinel-Node Metastases. N Engl J Med. Apr 4 2024;390(13):1163-1175. doi:10.1056/ NEJMoa2313487
14. Gentilini OD, Botteri E, Sangalli C, et al. Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy vs No Axillary Surgery in Patients With Small Breast Cancer and Negative Results on Ultrasonography of Axillary Lymph Nodes: The SOUND Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. Nov 1 2023;9(11):1557-1564. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.3759
15. Martelli G, Boracchi P, De Palo M, et al. A randomized trial comparing axillary dissection to no axillary dissection in older patients with T1N0 breast cancer: results after 5 years of follow-up. Ann Surg. Jul 2005;242(1):1-6; discussion 7-9. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000167759.15670.14
16. Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA, et al. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer: the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) clinical trial. JAMA. Oct 9 2013;310(14):1455-61. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.278932
17. Mamounas EP, Brown A, Anderson S, et al. Sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol. Apr 20 2005;23(12):2694-702. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.05.188
18. Kuehn T, Bauerfeind I, Fehm T, et al. Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy in patients with breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (SENTINA): a prospective, multicentre cohort study. Lancet Oncol. Jun 2013;14(7):609-18. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70166-9
19. Boileau JF, Poirier B, Basik M, et al. Sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer: the SN FNAC study. J Clin Oncol. Jan 20 2015;33(3):258-64. doi:10.1200/JCO.2014.55.7827
20. Classe JM, Loaec C, Gimbergues P, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy without axillary lymphadenectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is accurate and safe for selected patients: the GANEA 2 study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. Jan 2019;173(2):343-352. doi:10.1007/s10549-018-5004-7
21. Kalinsky K, Barlow WE, Gralow JR, et al. 21-Gene Assay to Inform Chemotherapy Benefit in Node-Positive Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. Dec 16 2021;385(25):2336-2347. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa 2108873
22. Cardoso F, van’t Veer LJ, Bogaerts J, et al. 70-Gene Signature as an Aid to Treatment Decisions in Early-Stage Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. Aug 25 2016;375(8):717-29. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1602253
23. Mamtani A, Barrio AV, King TA, et al. How Often Does Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Avoid Axillary Dissection in Patients With Histologically Confirmed Nodal Metastases? Results of a Prospective Study. Ann Surg Oncol. Oct 2016;2 3(11):3467-3474. doi:10.1245/s10434-016-5246-8
24. Laws A, Hughes ME, Hu J, et al. Impact of Residual Nodal Disease Burden on Technical Outcomes of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Node-Positive (cN1) Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. Nov 2019;26(12):3846-3855. doi:10. 1245/s10434-019-07515-4
25. Weiss A, Wong S, Golshan M, et al. Patterns of Axillary Management in Stages 2 and 3 Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer by Initial Treatment Approach. Ann Surg Oncol. Dec 2019;2 6(13):4326-4336. doi:10.1245/s10434-019-07785-y
26. Fisher B, Montague E, Redmond C, et al. Comparison of radical mastectomy with alternative treatments for primary breast cancer. A first report of results from a prospective randomized clinical trial. Cancer. Jun 1977;39(6 Suppl):2827-39. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(197706)39:6<2827::aid-cncr2820390671>3.0.co;2-i
27. Fisher B, Jeong JH, Anderson S, Bryant J, Fisher ER, Wolmark N. Twenty-five-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing radical mastectomy, total mastectomy, and total mastectomy followed by irradiation. N Engl J Med. Aug 22 2002;347 (8):567-75. doi:10.1056/NEJM oa020128
28. Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, et al. Adjuvant Chemotherapy Guided by a 21-Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. Jul 12 2018;379(2):111-121. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa 1804710
29. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. Dec 30 2004 ;351(27):2817-26. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa041588
30. Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, et al. Prospective Validation of a 21-Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. Nov 19 2015 ;373(21):2005-14. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1510764
31. Johnston SRD, Toi M, O’Shaughnessy J, et al. Abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer (monarchE): results from a preplanned interim analysis of a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. Jan 2023;24(1):77-90. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00694-5
32. Giuliano AE, Edge SB, Hortobagyi GN. Eighth Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Breast Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. Jul 2018;25(7):1783-1785. doi:10.1245/s10434-018-6486-6
33. Marin C, Zijing C, Li Y, et al. Biology is Queen: 21 gene recurrence score has stronger prognostic ability than lymph node burden. 2024:
34. Kantor O, Weiss A, Burstein HJ, Mittendorf EA, King TA. Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Alone is Adequate for Chemotherapy Decisions in Postmenopausal Early-Stage Hormone-Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Breast Cancer with One to Three Positive Sentinel Lymph Nodes. Ann Surg Oncol. Nov 2022;29(12):7674-7682. doi:10.1245/s 10434-022-12032-y
35. Farley C, Bassett R, Meric-Bernstam F, et al. To Dissect or Not to Dissect: Can We Predict the Presence of Four or More Axillary Lymph Node Metastases in Postmenopausal Women with Clinically Node-Negative Breast Cancer? Ann Surg Oncol. Dec 2023;30(13):8327-8334. doi:10.1245/s 10434-023-14245-1
36. Rocco N, Ghilli M, Curcio A, et al. Is routine axillary lymph node dissection needed to tailor systemic treatments for breast cancer patients in the era of molecular oncology? A position paper of the Italian National Association of Breast Surgeons (ANISC). Eur J Surg Oncol. Feb 2024;50(2):107954. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2024.107954
37. Weber WP, Matrai Z, Hayoz S, et al. Association of Axillary Dissection With Systemic Therapy in Patients With Clinically Node-Positive Breast Cancer. JAMA Surg. Oct 1 2023;158(10): 1013-1021. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2023.2840
38. de Boniface J, Appelgren M, Szulkin R, et al. Completion axillary lymph node dissection for the identification of pN2-3 status as an indication for adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment: a post-hoc analysis of the randomised, phase 3 SENOMAC trial. Lancet Oncol. Sep 2024;25(9):1222-1230. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(24)00350-4
39. FDA approves ribociclib with an aromatase inhibitor and ribociclib and letrozole co-pack for early high-risk breast cancer. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-ribociclib-aromatase-inhibitor-and-ribociclib-and-letrozole-co-pack-early-high-risk-0
40. Fasching PA, Stroyakovskiy D, Yardley D, et al. LBA13 – Adjuvant ribociclib (RIB) plus nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) in patients (Pts) with HR+/HER2− early breast cancer (EBC): 4-year outcomes from the NATALEE trial. 2024:
41. Pilewskie M, Sevilimedu V, Eroglu I, et al. How Often Do Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Results Affect Adjuvant Therapy Decisions Among Postmenopausal Women with Early-Stage HR(+)/HER2(-) Breast Cancer in the Post-RxPONDER Era? Ann Surg Oncol. Oct 2022;29(10) :6267-6273. doi:10.1245/s10434-022-12193-w
42. Levinson W, Kallewaard M, Bhatia RS, et al. ‘Choosing Wisely’: a growing international campaign. BMJ Qual Saf. Feb 2015;24(2):167-74. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003821
43. Hughes KS, Schnaper LA, Bellon JR, et al. Lumpectomy plus tamoxifen with or without irradiation in women age 70 years or older with early breast cancer: long-term follow-up of CALGB 9343. J Clin Oncol. Jul 1 2013;31(19):2382-7. doi:10.1200/JCO.2012.45.2615
44. Xu S, Murtagh S, Han Y, Wan F, Toriola AT. Breast Cancer Incidence Among US Women Aged 20 to 49 Years by Race, Stage, and Hormone Receptor Status. JAMA Netw Open. Jan 2 2024;7(1 ):e2353331. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.53331
45. Vuong B, Jacinto AI, Chang SB, Kuehner GE, Savitz AC. Contemporary Review of the Management and Treatment of Young Breast Cancer Patients. Clin Breast Cancer. Jun 7 2024; doi:10.1016/j.clbc.2024.06.001
46. Ong CT, Thomas SM, Blitzblau RC, et al. Patient Age and Tumor Subtype Predict the Extent of Axillary Surgery Among Breast Cancer Patients Eligible for the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Trial Z0011. Ann Surg Oncol. Nov 2017;24(12):3559-3566. doi:10.1245/s10434-017-6075-0
47. Kuijer A, Dominici LS, Rosenberg SM, et al. Arm Morbidity After Local Therapy for Young Breast Cancer Patients. Ann Surg Oncol. Oct 2021; 28(11):6071-6082. doi:10.1245/s10434-021-09947-3
48. Loi S, Stringer-reasor E, Frenel J, et al. 235MO – Efficacy and safety of ribociclib (RIB) + nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) in younger patients (pts) with HR+/HER2− early breast cancer (EBC) in NATALEE. 2024: