Internal Mammary Lymphadenopathy Does Not Impact Oncologic Outcomes in Patients Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Results from the I-SPY2 Clinical Trial

Mara A Piltin,Peter Norwood,Velle Ladores,Rita A Mukhtar,Candice A Sauder,Mehra Golshan,Julia Tchou,Roshni Rao,Marie Catherine Lee,Jennifer Son,Chantal Reyna,Kelly Hewitt,Henry Kuerer,Gretchen Ahrendt,Ian Greenwalt,Jennifer Tseng,Lauren Postlewait,Marissa Howard-McNatt,Nora Jaskowiak,Laura J Esserman,Judy C Boughey,, ISPY2 Locoregional Working Group
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-024-15708-9
2024-07-09
Abstract:Background: Internal mammary lymphadenopathy (IML) plays a role in breast cancer stage and prognosis. We aimed to evaluate method of IML detection, how IML impacts response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), and oncologic outcomes. Methods: We evaluated patients enrolled in the I-SPY-2 clinical trial from 2010 to 2022. We captured the radiographic method of IML detection (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], positron emission tomography/computed tomography [PET/CT], or both) and compared patients with IML with those without. Rates of locoregional recurrence (LRR), distant recurrence (DR) and event-free survival (EFS) were compared by bivariate analysis. Results: Of 2095 patients, 198 (9.5%) had IML reported on pretreatment imaging. The method of IML detection was 154 (77.8%) MRI only, 11 (5.6%) PET/CT only, and 33 (16.7%) both. Factors associated with IML were younger age (p = 0.001), larger tumors (p < 0.001), and higher tumor grade (p = 0.027). Pathologic complete response (pCR) was slightly higher in the IML group (41.4% vs. 34.0%; p = 0.03). There was no difference in breast or axillary surgery (p = 0.41 and p = 0.16), however IML patients were more likely to undergo radiation (68.2% vs. 54.1%; p < 0.001). With a median follow up of 3.72 years (range 0.4-10.2), there was no difference between IM+ versus IM- in LRR (5.6% vs. 3.8%; p = 0.25), DR (9.1% vs. 7.9%; p = 0.58), or EFS (61.6% vs. 57.2%; p = 0.48). This was true for patients with and without pCR. Conclusions: In this large cohort of patients treated with NAC, outcomes were not negatively impacted by IML. We demonstrated that IML influences treatment selection but is not a poor prognostic indicator when treated with modern NAC and multidisciplinary disease management.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?