Association of a Complete Breast Cancer Pathologic Response with Axillary Lymph Node Metastasis Via Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Results from the CSBrS-012 Study
Le Ma,Pin Gao,Zhenzhen Liu,Dechuang Jiao,Rui Ling,Jingjing Xiao,Yi Zhao,Yitong Wang,Hongjian Yang,Yunjiang Liu,Ke Liu,Jianguo Zhang,Guangyan Li,Dahua Mao,Yinglei Deng,Jianjun He,Maimaitiaili Amina,Zhigang Yu,Wang Fei,Yinhua Liu,Peifen Fu,Minya Yao,Jiandong Wang,Li Zhu,Hongchuan Jiang,Zuowei Zhao,Xingsong Tian,Zhongwei Cao,Xinyu Ma,Kejin Wu,Shaomei Fu,Ailin Song,Yanwei Wang,Jin Feng,Zhimin Fan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/cm9.0000000000002849
2023-01-01
Abstract:To the Editor: In the last decade, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has become a well-accepted treatment option for breast cancer, although few detailed description of NAC in China has yet been reported.[1] A previous study found that among patients with clinically node-negative (cN0) breast cancer, 97.7% (432/442) with breast pathologic complete response (bpCR) had ypN0 (absence of metastases in the axillary lymph nodes); and 71.6% (882/1232) without bpCR achieved ypN0 (P <0.001). As for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive or triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) that achieved bpCR, the probability of lymph node metastasis was less than 2%. This research aimed to investigate NAC status in China using data obtained from the Chinese Society of Breast Surgery (CSBrS) study from 2010 to 2020. It seeks to answer the following questions: what the current trend in NAC utilization is and what the effects of breast and axillary lymph node are in China. Data were obtained from 20 hospitals in China by CSBrS study (analyzed the data from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2020). This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Hospital of Jilin University (No. 2021-066). This clinical study was a retrospective study, the application for exemption of informed consent was submitted, and the exemption was approved. Data collection and exclusion criteria are provided in Supplementary Figure 1, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B719. bpCR was defined as the absence of both invasive and cancer in situ within the breast, and ypN0 defined as the absence of metastasis within the axillary lymph nodes after NAC. Isolated tumor cell (ITC) was defined as ypN positive. Patients were defined as cN0 prior to NAC if imaging examination and/or lymph node(s) biopsy showed no evidence of metastasis. Patients were defined as cN1 if the axillary lymph node biopsy confirmed nodal involvement and/or the lymph node(s) were movable at palpation. General information regarding clinical and pathologic patient data was evaluated. Data were presented as numbers and percentages. Proportions were compared between groups by χ2 analysis. SPSS (version 22.0; IBM Corp., Chicago, IL, USA) and Prism 9 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA) were used for statistical analysis. All statistical tests were based on a two-sided probability, and P <0.001was considered statistically significant. A total of 11,108 patients scheduled NAC, and 10,713 patients were deemed to be eligible and were included in the final analysis. Demographics and clinical characteristics of enrolled patients are provided in Supplementary Table 1, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B719; and initial chemotherapy regimen information is provided in Supplementary Table 2, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B719. The overall usage rate for NAC increased from 9.3% in 2010 to 16.2% in 2020 [Supplementary Figure 2, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B719]. The NAC rate differed across hospitals, with the lowest rate being 3.8% and the highest being 36.4% in 2020. For HER2+ breast cancer patients, the use of targeted therapy increased annually, with the usage rate reaching 65.1% in 2020 [Supplementary Figure 3A, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B719]. The percentage of patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery, axillary lymph node biopsy, and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) increased annually [Supplementary Figure 3B–D, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B719]. Based on the subtype analysis, the rates of bpCR were 5.8% (52/904), 13.3% (449/3386), 22.1% (486/2201), 31.9% (509/1596), and 30.4% (499/1644) for luminal A, luminal B, hormone receptor (HR)+/HER2–, HR–/HER2+, and TNBC, respectively [Supplementary Table 3, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B719]. In this study, 15.3% (1567/10,254) had total pathologic complete response (pCR) in both breast and lymph nodes, and 30.1% (3086/10,254) had axillary pathologic complete response (apCR) with residual tumor in breast; and 5.0% (511/10,254) had bpCR with positive lymph node metastasis. A total of 6142 patients with cT1-2N0-1 breast cancer were included for the association of bpCR with the absence of axillary lymph node metastasis. A higher proportion of ypN0 was found among cT1-2N0 patients with bpCR than among their counterparts (100.0% [8/8] vs. 60.5% [107/177] for luminal A, P = 0.025 85.3% [93/109] vs. 58.4% [353/604] for luminal B, P <0.001; 90.6% [126/139] vs. 72.8% [249/342] for HR+/HER2+, P <0.001; 94.5% [103/109] vs. 78.5% [153/195] for HR–/HER2+, P <0.001; and 93.7% [133/142] vs. 80.2% [223/278] for TNBC, P <0.001) [Supplementary Table 4, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B719]. Overall, for patients with cT1-2N0 cancer, the proportion with ypN0 was 91.3% (463/507) with bpCR, while the proportion was 68.0% (1085/1596) for patients without bpCR (P <0.001). Among the patients with cT1-2N1 who achieved bpCR, 47.4% (9/19) of luminal A patients were free from lymph node involvement; 62.4% (138/221) for luminal B; 72.3% (146/202) for HR+/HER2+; 80.0% (180/225) for HR–/HER2+; and 74.6% (205/872) for TNBC [Supplementary Table 4, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B719]. Overall, for these patients, 71.8% (626/872) with bpCR achieved ypN0; and 31.9% (1010/3167) without bpCR achieved ypN0 (P <0.001). As shown in Supplementary Table 5, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B719, among the 872 bpCR patients (cT1-2N1), 246 had lymph node metastasis after NAC, 64.6% (159/246) had ypN1, and 35.4% (87/246) had ypN2–3 metastasis. For HR–/HER2+ and TNBC cancer, only 4.4% and 10.2% patients had more than three metastatic lymph nodes. In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, we found that the overall usage rate of NAC for breast cancer in China has increased within the last decade, although the rate varies greatly due to region, hospital, or the attitudes of patients and doctors. In this study, the proportion of targeted drugs used is 40.5%.Although the rate is not as high as that used in clinical trials, it is still higher than that in the study of Li et al[2] (32.5%) from China, CSBrS-006. Axillary status after NAC has been consistently reported as a robust prognostic factor for patient survival independent of primary tumor response. We sought to answer whether a pathologic primary tumor response to NAC could predict axillary lymph node status.[1,3] Among the patients with cT1-2N0 breast cancer who achieved bpCR post-NAC, over 90.0% of the patients had no residual nodes, particularly among those with HR–/HER2+ or TNBC patients. Among those with cN1 breast cancer, more patients had residual cancer in the lymph nodes regardless of whether bpCR was achieved. According to the consensus of the 2017 St. Gallen International Expert Meeting, for patients with stage cN0 disease who receive NAC, SLNB is safe and recommended after NAC.[4] The GANEA2 study[5] also confirmed the accuracy and safety of SNLB after NAC for breast cancer patients. For cN0 patients, apCR was strongly related to the breast cancer subtypes. apCR rates were 93.3%, 98.4%, 100%, and 98.5% for HR+/HER2–, HR+/HER2+, HR–/HER2+, and TNBC patients, respectively. Barron et al[3]. found that the rates of ypN0 for patients with cN0 HER2+ or TNBC breast cancer, who achieved bpCR after NAC, were 99.0% and 98.4%, respectively. In this study, patients with cN0 HR–/HER2+ cancer or TNBC who achieved bpCR after NAC had ypN0 rates of 94.5% and 93.7%, respectively. For TNBC and HR–/HER2+ patients with cN0, our results indicate that it may be safe to implement SLNB instead of ALND after NAC. Since the ypN0 rates of these patients are high, it may also be feasible for cN0, bpCR, and HR-/Her2+,TNBC patients to omit SLNB. CSBrS initiated this multicenter retrospective study to further confirm whether this is a universal phenomenon that does exist in the real world. However, more clinical data are required for follow-up safety verification. Caution is necessary for patients with cT1-2N1, treated with SLNB and with axillary lymph node degeneration after NAC. It is necessary to use dual tracers for the detection of ≥3 sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs), and the placement of marker clips for the identification of positive lymph nodes before NAC, as well as markers removal during surgery.[7] The ACOSOG Z1071 trial found that after double marker identification, ≥3 SLNs reduced the false negative rate to 9.8%. In the GANEA2 study[5], for patients with initially involved lymph nodes who had negative SLNs after NAC, in the absence of lymph vascular invasion, and given a remaining breast tumor size of less than 5 mm, the risk for a positive ALND was 3.7%, regardless of the number of SLNs that were removed. Barrio et al[8] found that among 610 patients, 555 (91%) cN1 improved to cN0 after NAC and underwent SLNB. The results demonstrated cN1 patients with three or more negative SLNs and nodal radiation, although without routine nodal clipping, nodal recurrence rates were low. These findings support the possibility of omission of ALND for such patients. In this study, for all subtypes of breast cancer, the number of axillary lymph node metastases gradually decreased as the number of positive nodes increased [Supplementary Table 5, https://links.lww.com/CM9/B719]. For patients with HR–/HER2+ and TNBC cancer, the proportions with four or more axillary lymph node metastases were 4.4% and 10.2%, respectively.[1,6] Combined with the conclusions of previous studies, for patients with cN1, HR-/HER2+, TNBC, and bpCR, as well as negative SLN patients, avoidance of ALND is acceptable. Since the proportion of patients with more than four positive SLNs is very low, the use of radiotherapy instead of ALND is likely safe for certain types of breast cancer patients. However, the results of the Alliance A011202 trial, more clinical data, and further prospective studies are necessary to ensure the accuracy of this conclusion. This study provides representative data for the treatment of women with breast cancer in real world China, which provides for increased generalization of the findings. However, it is important to note that axillary lymph node aspiration was not performed in some patients who received cN1 imaging assessment, which may affect pre-neoadjuvant N staging. With a decreasing number of contra-indications, the use of NAC in China has increased yearly. The rates of cT1-2N0, TNBC, and HR–/HER2+ patients with ypN0 were found to be very high. More prospective studies are needed to demonstrate whether these patients can be exempted from SLNB. Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge the member units of CSBrS for the data collection, Yangyu Zhang for the data analysis and Xiaoyun Mao for providing revisions to this manuscript. We thank International Science Editing (http://www.internationalscienceediting.com) for editing this manuscript. Funding This work was supported by a grant from the Beijing Medical Reward Foundation (No. YXJL-2016-0040-0012). Conflicts of interest None.