Axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) is the standard staging and therapeutic procedure for preoperatively diagnosed node-positive breast cancer. Current practice guidelines recommend a complete ALND for breast cancer patients whose sentinel lymph node (SLN) contains metastatic tumor, but complete ALND is associated with substantial morbidity affecting up to 39% of patients, with a nearly 3-fold increased risk of lymphedema or regional sensory loss.
In the 1990s, the introduction of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) has resulted in changes in the management of the axilla. SLNB has become the standard of care as staging procedure in clinically node-negative breast cancer patients because 40% to 60% of SLN-positive patients do not have non-sentinel lymph node (NSLN) involvement.
Although ALND provides additional prognostic information such as the number of involved lymph nodes and may decrease the rate of regional recurrence, its impact on survival seems negligible coupled with an increased morbidity as compared to SLNB.
Recent clinical trials have suggested that there is no difference in the outcomes of patients with positive SLN whether they are treated with ALND or given no further axillary surgery.[5,6] These studies raised doubts concerning the role of SLNB. A recent trial compared SLNB with the assessment of whether an axillary ultrasound is negative in patients with early breast cancer. SLN metastasis is observed in approximately 30% of SLNBs. Various clinicopathological parameters have been identified as independent predictors of axillary lymph node metastasis in early breast Cancer: clinical palpability, invasive carcinoma size, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), histological grade, hormone receptor (HR) status, age, multifocality, metastasis detection method, number of positive and negative SLN, and molecular subtype classification. According to the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011 trial, among patients with ≥2 positive SLNs, breast cancer treated with breast conservation and systemic therapy, SLNB did not result in inferior survival compared with ALND (5-year overall survival was 92.5% vs 91.8%; 5-year disease-free survival was 83.9% vs 82.2%). The International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 23–01 (IBCSG 23–01) indicated that ALND should be avoided if metastases are detected in only 1 or 2 SLNs. On the other hand, SLN-positive patients will receive systemic therapy regardless of the presence of any additional nodal metastasis; therefore, the therapeutic impact of the number of the positive lymph nodes is minimal.
Nevertheless, in 40% to 60% of patients, the NSLNs contain no further metastases and ALND provides no benefit, meaning that these patients underwent an unnecessary ALND. In addition, the incidence of regional recurrence is much lower than expected when axillary surgery was omitted. Therefore, the ability of a diagnostic test to predict the chance of NSLN involvement is critical to avoid unnecessary ALND. Giuliano et al reported that SLNB alone does not result in decreasing survival in SLN-positive patients. A recent review concluded that there is a potential role for avoiding ALND in selected SLN-positive patients. In studies using different techniques, the possibility of a NSLN metastasis in SLN-negative patients (false-negative) is reported to be 0% to 11%; this rate increases to 12% to 14% if isolated tumor cells (ITCs) are detected in the SLN, and to 20% to 35% in the presence of micrometastasis. Hence, factors that could predict the NSLN status in the presence of SLN involvement were examined and numerous pathological factors were found to be associated with higher NSLN involvement in the presence of a positive SLNB.
Management strategies that avoid invasive ALND are needed for node-negative patients. If we can predict the state of the axillary lymph nodes before SLNB, individuals who are node-negative or limited node-positive could avoid the unnecessary SLNB or ALND. Unfortunately, the preoperative clinical and imaging examinations of the axillary are rather poor for predicting axillary lymph node metastasis.
Therefore, the goal of this study was to characterize the various clinicopathological features of patients with invasive breast cancer in order to identify the risk factors that might help in predicting positive NSLN, particularly in cases of SLN metastasis in 1 to 2 nodes, hereby exploring the feasibility of avoiding ALND.
2 Materials and Methods
Patients with invasive breast cancer who underwent SLNB at the Beijing Chaoyang Hospital affiliated with Capital Medical University between March 2009 and March 2017 were eligible for inclusion in this retrospective chart review. Invasive breast cancer was defined as penetration of the basement membrane by malignant cells invading the stroma. ALND was performed in patients for no clinically positive axillary lymph nodes with macro- and micrometastasis in the SLNs. Of the patients with positive SLN, those with 1 or 2 positive SLNs were evaluated further. Only those patients with complete data for clinicopathological factors including age, primary tumor size (in cm), histological type (ductal/lobular), histological grade (I–III), LVI, venous involvement, tumor location, hormonal receptor status, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status, molecular subtype, Ki-67 index, and menstruation status were enrolled in the study. There were 1125 patients who satisfied the following criteria:
- diagnosis of breast cancer by core needle aspiration or excisional biopsy;
- no significant palpation of axillary lymph nodes;
- no preoperative anti-cancer therapy;
- preoperative SLNB performed; and
The exclusion criteria were:
- without SLN metastasis;
- >2 positive SLNs; or
- ≤2 total number of SLNs. The numbers of positive and negative nodes on ALND were recorded.
Ethical approval for this study was obtained from Chaoyang Hospital Research Ethics Committee. Individual informed consent was waived by the committee because of the retrospective nature of the study.
2.2 SLN biopsy
The technique of SLNB was adapted to early breast cancer. SLNs were identified after peri-areolar intradermal injection of carbon nanoparticles (Chongqing LUMMY Pharmaceutical Co., Chongqing, China) in the form of a standard carbon nanoparticle suspension (1 mL = 50 mg). Nanoparticle suspension (1 mL) was intradermally injected into the periareolar region or glandular tissue around the tumor in the 4 (clockwise) quadrants of the breast 10 minutes before surgery. The whole breast was massaged for about 5 minutes to facilitate the absorption of the carbon nanoparticles into the lymph vessels. In order to identify the stained lymph nodes, a transverse incision was made just below the hair-bearing region of the axilla. After raising the skin flaps, black stained lymphatic tracts were meticulously searched and traced towards the axilla. The lymph nodes stained black and to which a black lymphatic trace led were considered as SLNs. The SLNB was also performed by using blue dye 10 minutes before operation in some patients. A 1% solution of blue dye (1 mL) was injected in the same way as the carbon nanoparticles and the axilla was explored in the same manner. The lymph nodes stained blue were considered as SLNs. All SLNs were harvested and sent for pathological examination. Intraoperative frozen section was performed on all SLNs. The SLN was cut longitudinally into 2 halves. Half of the node was frozen for immediate examination, and up to 2 sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E). The other half was fixed in formalin and embedded in paraffin, and up to 2 sections were stained with H&E.
The size of the metastasis was categorized according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Staging Manual (7th edition): ITCs were defined as a metastasis ≤0.2 mm (pN0i+); micrometastases (MI) were defined as >0.2 mm but ≤2 mm (pN1mi), and macrometastases were defined as >2 mm (pN1). A sentinel node was defined as positive in the presence of a macrometastasis, micrometastasis, or ITC.
All procedures of SLNB were completed within 30 to 45 minutes. Due to inherent cultural barriers and cancer fatalism in Chinese women, all patients chose complete ALND upon diagnosis of breast cancer. The results of ALND were used for validating the results of SLNB. For all additional nodes identified by ALND, routine H&E analysis was conducted on a single section of each node.
2.3 Histopathological evaluation
The fresh tissue containing the SLN (1 or more fragments) was submitted for intraoperative pathological examination by cytological imprinting and frozen section. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status was performed and tumors were deemed positive for each receptor if at least 10% of the invasive tumor cells in a section exhibited nuclear staining. HER2 expression was examined by IHC, which was determined according to the category (−, 180 +, ++, and +++). HER2 over-expression was defined as 3+ on IHC, or 2+ on IHC and positive with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). FISH was used in cases when it was difficult to determine the HER2 status by IHC. Ki-67 was examined by IHC, and the results were expressed as the percentage of stained tumor cells.
Hematoxylin-eosin staining was used to assess LVI and histological grading, which was defined according to the Scarff-Bloom-Richardson system. SLNs were re-examined postoperatively using fixed sections. All nodal structures isolated were serially cross-sectioned at 2-mm intervals perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. In cases in which the size of the SLN was <5 mm, bisection along the longest axis was considered acceptable.
Breast cancer was staged according to the TNM 7th edition classification, as proposed by the AJCC. All IHC evaluations were performed by 4 well-trained pathologists. In cases in which assessment of grade differed, the disagreements were solved by consensus after joint review using a conference microscope.
Patients were assigned into 4 subgroups, as proposed by the St Gallen International Expert Consensus based on the results of their ER, PR, and HER2 statuses, and Ki-67 index:
- luminal A, that is, ER or PR positive, HER2 negative, and Ki-67 index <14%;
- luminal B, that is, ER or PR positive, HER2 positive, or Ki-67 index ≥14%;
- HER2-positive, that is, ER and PR negative and HER2 positive; and
- triple-negative, that is, negative for ER, PR, and HER2. To obtain the overall tumor histological grade, the scores for each category were added together, giving a possible total of 3 to 9. Histological grade was then allocated on the following basis: 3 to 5 points: grade I, well-differentiated; 6 to 7 points: grade II, moderately differentiated; and 8 to 9 points: grade III, poorly differentiated. This method of assessing tumor differentiation (along with most other methods) is based essentially on subjective assessment of morphological features.
2.4 Statistical analysis
The associations between NSLN metastasis and clinicopathological factors were examined. Descriptive statistics were reported for all variables. Continuous variables were presented as median (range). Categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentage. Statistical analyses were performed using the Mann–Whitney's U test and the Chi-square test. Univariate logistic regression was performed. Variables with P values <.05 in univariate analyses were included in the multivariate logistic regression (forward) analysis. The diagnostic accuracy of the invasive tumor size was assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.
The area under the ROC curve (AUC) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess model discrimination. It is generally accepted that AUC values 0.7 to 0.8 represent fair discrimination, whereas AUC values >0.8 represent good discrimination. Statistical significance was set at P <.05. SPSS 20.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY) was used for statistical analyses.
3.1 Positive SLNs and NSLNs
A total of 1125 patients were included. All patients were female. Among the 1125 patients, 147 had positive SLN (13.1%), while 978 had negative SLN (86.9%). The median of SLNs sampled for each patient was 2.9 (range, 1–10). Of the patients with positive SLN, 1 to 2 positive SLNs and a total of ≥3 SLNs were observed in 119 patients (81.0%); they met the inclusion criteria and received routine ALND. Among these 119 patients, NSLN metastasis was observed in 42 patients (35.3%) with an average of 16.5 NSLN for each patient. Seventy-two patients (60.5%) had 1 positive SLN, 26 patients (21.8%) had 2 positive SLNs, and 21 patients (17.7%) had ITCs in SLNs (Fig. 1).
3.2 Patient characteristics and clinicopathological factors
Median patient age was 52 years (range 28–75 years). There was no association between age and non-SLN metastasis (Table 1). Univariate analyses revealed that non-SLN metastasis was significantly association with histological grade (P =.011), LVI (P =.006), and HER2 expression (P =.004). Median invasive tumor size was significantly larger in patients with positive NSLN compared with patients with negative NSLN (28 vs 24 mm, P <.001) (Fig. 2). Therefore, we investigated the threshold value for invasive tumor size that differentiated patients with NSLN metastasis using ROC analysis. ROC analysis identified a cut-off point of 26 mm 246 (AUC 0.712, CI: 0.614–0.811; false-negative rate of 23.8%; 76.2% sensitivity; 63.6% specificity; positive predictive value of 53.3%; negative predictive value of 83.1%; 68.1% accuracy; P <.001; Fig. 3). We then used this cut-off point of 26 mm to assess the patients. As shown in Table 2, using a cut-off value of 26 mm resulted in a significant association between invasive tumor size and NSLN metastasis (P <.001), but there was no significant association between non-SLN metastasis and age, histological type, tumor location, menstruation, venous involvement, molecular subtype, ER and/or PR status, or Ki-67 labeling index.
3.3 Multivariate analysis of predictor for NSLN metastasis
Multivariate analysis showed that LVI (P =.007; OR: 4.130; 95% CI: 1.465–11.641), 257 invasive tumor size (P <.001; OR: 7.176; 95% CI: 2.710–19.002), and HER2 expression (P =.006; OR: 5.489; 95% CI: 1.635–18.428) were independently associated with NSLN metastasis (Table 3). Histological grade was not independently associated with NSLN metastasis when all 4 variables were considered together (P =.472).
SLNB alone without ALND can offer excellent regional control if there is ≤2 positive SLNs. This study aimed to explore the characteristics and predictive factors for NSLN metastasis in breast cancer patients with 1-2 positive SLNs and examine the factors associated with positive NSLN. The results suggest that for 1-2 positive SLNs, LVI, large invasive tumor size, and HER2 over-expression are independently associated with NSLN metastases.
SLNB for clinically node-negative breast cancer has become a standard procedure worldwide and it is important to determine pathologically whether the node is negative before surgery. Although ALND has been the standard axilla management approach for patients with positive SLN, postoperative pathology examination showed that some SLN-positive patients had no NSLN metastasis. Recent clinical trials suggest that ALND is unnecessary if a metastasis is detected in 1 or 2 SLNs.[5,17] Van la Parra et al found that in patients with clinically node-negative disease, the SLN was the only involved node in 40% to 60% of patients undergoing SLNB. The ACOSOG Z0011 study showed that patients with H&E-detected metastases in the SLN would have similar outcomes whether they were randomized to ALND or no ALND and no axillary irradiation. SLNB alone without ALND results in extremely low locoregional recurrence and excellent overall survival, comparable to that in patients undergoing ALND if they have 1-2 positive SLN. No significant benefit in locoregional control was seen with ALND despite the removal of additional positive lymph nodes. Removal of additional positive nodes with ALND did not result in fewer locoregional recurrences than did SLND alone at a median follow-up of 6.3 Years. In the present study, we investigated patients with 1-2 positive SLNs to elucidate the clinicopathological factors associated with NSLN. The results revealed that 42 (35.3%) patients had NSLN metastasis among the 119 patients with 1-2 positive SLNs, which is similar to a Japanese study. Therefore, breast surgeons must accept the risk of remaining NSLN metastasis if they do not perform ALND for patients with 1-2 SLN metastases. Thus, the prediction of NSLN metastasis in the case of 1-2 positive SLN metastasis is necessary when making decisions regarding an additional ALND.
Previous studies have reported that younger age, higher pT stage, and LVI were independent predictors of SLN metastasis, with hormonal receptors and histological grade being good predictors of positive SLN.[10,28] With regard to the prediction of NSLN metastases, younger age, large tumor size or higher pT stage, LVI, extracapsular invasion, the ratio of positive SLNs to the total number of harvested SLNs, or total tumor load in the SLNs assessed by 1-step nucleic acid amplification have been reported as useful markers. Nevertheless, these studies were not performed in patients with 1–2 positive SLNs. Therefore, in the present study, we investigated the association between NSLN metastasis and clinicopathological factors, particularly in patients with 1-2 positive SLNs. The univariate analyses revealed that invasive tumor size, histological grade, LVI, and HER2 over-expression were significantly associated with NSLN metastasis in patients with 1-2 SLN metastasis. Invasive tumor size was significantly larger in patients who had positive NSLN compared with those who had no positive NSLN. The ROC analysis identified 26 mm as the best cut-off point to discriminate between positive and negative NSLN patients. The multivariate analysis showed that invasive tumor size, LVI, and HER2 over-expression were independently associated with NSLN metastasis. Therefore, these results suggest that in the presence of invasive tumor ≥26 mm, LVI, and over-expressed HER2, there is a higher probability of NSLN metastases.
Over the past years, several studies have been conducted to identify clinicopathological variables predictive of NSLN metastases in order to select patients who would benefit the most from ALND. These studies demonstrated that different pathological characteristics of the primary tumor and SLNs were associated with an increased possibility of positive NSLN. Nevertheless, there is no consensus on the predictive factor of NSLN metastasis. Our results were consistent with previous studies in that tumor size and LVI were associated with NSLN metastasis except HER2 over-expression. Kwon et al indicated that there is no significant relationship between HER2 expression and NSLN metastasis. In contrast, the results obtained in this study showed that over-expression of HER2 significantly increased the probability of NSLN metastasis. HER2 is well known for its ability to enhance cell proliferation, survival, motility, and adhesion. HER2 over-expression induces lymphangiogenesis, promotes metastasis, and results in poor prognosis of breast cancer by up-regulating vascular endothelial growth factor-C (VEGF-C) expression.
A study by Schoppmann et al showed that over-expression of HER2 would increase the probability of tumor metastasis and that inhibiting Her-2/neu may reduce tumor progression by blocking VEGF-C-mediated tumor cell proliferation and lymphogenic metastasis.
According to the guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists for HER2 testing in breast cancer, HER2 – and + are HER2-negative. HER2 +++ is positive. When HER2 IHC is equivocal (++), the HER2 status has to be confirmed by FISH. In the present study, we analyzed the difference of NSLN metastasis between HER2 – and + versus HER2 ++ and +++. In patients with HER2 – and +, the probability of additional NSLN metastases was 27.8% (22/79) compared with 50% (20/40) for patients with HER2 ++ 342 and +++.
Recently, many mathematical models have been developed to evaluate the predictive factor of NSLN metastasis in SLN-positive patients, including the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) chart, Tenon score, Stanford model, Cambridge model, and Mayo algorithm. Various indicators in these studies may lead to poor accuracy of specific patient populations. Terrier et al found that the MSKCC nomogram and Tenon score model are better than the other models. Another multi-center study found that the AUC of the Tenon score was only 0.582, while the MSKCC nomogram, Cambridge model, and Stanford model had AUCs of 0.705, 0.711, and 0.730, respectively. The Shanghai Cancer Center Non-SLN nomogram showed an AUC of 0.78. Therefore, large-scale multi-center clinical studies are still needed to improve the above models.
The main limitations of the present study include its retrospective nature and the small number of patients who had positive SLN. We believe, however, that these limitations did not greatly affect the results of the study as the differences between NSLN positive and negative patients were too marked to have resulted from bias. Our results thus provide useful information on the risk factors for remnant NSLN metastasis under the condition of 1-2 positive SLNs. Prospective studies with larger number of patients are necessary to achieve an explicit standard for SLN-positive patients to avoid ALND, or evaluate appropriate treatment for patients with positive SLNs (1-2). The validation of these predictors in prospective studies may enable approximately half of early breast cancer patients with positive SLN to be staged with SLNB alone while avoiding the morbidity of unnecessary ALND.
NSLN metastasis was found in more than 30% of patients. Even in the presence of 1-2 positive SLNs, large tumor size (>26 mm), the presence of LVI, and HER2 over-expression were significantly associated with non-SLN metastasis.
The authors wish to thank the patients and their families for participating in the study.
Conceptualization: Fanrong Qiu.
Data curation: Huimin Song.
Investigation: Yunlei Wang.
Methodology: Zhigang Gao.
Project administration: Xiaofeng Han.
Visualization: Haoliang Wu.
Writing – original draft: Jianwei Zheng.
Writing – review & editing: Shuyan Cai.
. He ZY, Tong Q, Wu SG, et al. A comparison of quality of life and satisfaction of women with early-stage breast cancer
treated with breast conserving therapy vs. mastectomy in southern China. Support Care Cancer 2012;20:2441–9.
. Pusic AL, Cemal Y, Albornoz C, et al. Quality of life among breast cancer
patients with lymphedema: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome instruments and outcomes. J Cancer Surviv 2013;7:83–92.
. Kelley MC, Hansen N, McMasters KM. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymphadenectomy for breast cancer
. Am J Surg 2004;188:49–61.
. Mustac E, Matusan-Ilijas K, Marijic B, et al. Predicting the likelihood of additional nodal metastases in breast carcinoma patients with positive sentinel node biopsy. Int J Surg Pathol 2010;18:36–41.
. Giuliano AE, McCall L, Beitsch P, et al. Locoregional recurrence after sentinel lymph node dissection with or without axillary dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node metastases: the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 randomized trial. Ann Surg 2010;252:426–32.
. Cody HS 3rd, Houssami N. Axillary management in breast cancer
: what's new for 2012? Breast 2012;21:411–5.
. 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 2013;14:297–305.
. Gentilini O, Veronesi U. Abandoning sentinel lymph node biopsy
in early breast cancer
? A new trial in progress at the European Institute of Oncology of Milan (SOUND: Sentinel node vs Observation after axillary UltraSouND). Breast 2012;21:678–81.
. Gipponi M, Bassetti C, Canavese G, et al. Sentinel lymph node as a new marker 407 for therapeutic planning in breast cancer
patients. J Surg Oncol 2004;85:102–11.
. Viale G, Zurrida S, Maiorano E, et al. Predicting the status of axillary sentinel lymph nodes in 4351 patients with invasive breast carcinoma treated in a single institution. Cancer 2005;103:492–500.
. Sahbai S, Taran FA, Staebler A, et al. Sentinel lymph node mapping using SPECT/CT and gamma probe in endometrial cancer: an analysis of parameters affecting detection rate. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2017;44:1511–9.
. Gajdos C, Tartter PI, Bleiweiss IJ. Lymphatic invasion, tumor size, and age are independent predictors of axillary lymph node metastases in women with T1 breast cancers. Ann Surg 1999;230:692–6.
. Buglioni S, Di Filippo F, Terrenato I, et al. Quantitative molecular analysis of sentinel lymph node may be predictive of axillary node status in breast cancer
classified by molecular subtypes. PLoS One 2013;83: e58823:1–11.
. 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 NSABPB-2 randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:927–33.
. Sanjuan A, Escaramis G, Vidal-Sicart S, et al. Predicting non-sentinel lymph node
status in breast cancer
patients with sentinel lymph node involvement: evaluation of two scoring systems. Breast J 2010;16:134–40.
. Zhou L, Jiang Y, Yan T, et al. The prognostic role of cancer stem cells in breast cancer
: a meta-analysis of published literatures. Breast Cancer
Res Treat 2010;122:795–801.
. 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 2011;305:569–75.
. Pepels MJ, Vestjens JH, de Boer M, et al. Safety of avoiding routine use of axillary dissection in early stage breast cancer
: a systematic review. Breast Cancer
Res Treat 2011;125:301–13.
. Weaver DL. Pathological evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer
: a practical academic perspective from America. Histopathology 2005;46:702–6.
. Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Balassanian R, et al. Invasive Breast Cancer
Version 1.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2016;14:324–54.
. Pinero A, Canteras M, Moreno A, et al. Multicenter validation of two nomograms to predict non-sentinel node involvement in breast cancer
. Clin Transl Oncol 2013;15:117–23.
. Jones RL, Salter J, A’Hern R, et al. Relationship between oestrogen receptor status and proliferation in predicting response and long-term outcome to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer
. Breast Cancer
Res Treat 2010;119:315–23.
. Kurian AW, Carlson RW, Li C. Principles of Breast Cancer
Therapy [M]// Breast Cancer
Epidemiology. 2013; Spring New York: 371–388.
. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, et al. Strategies for subtypes--dealing with the diversity of breast cancer
: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer
2011. Ann Oncol 2011;22:1736–47.
. Guiu S, Michiels S, Andre F, et al. Molecular subclasses of breast cancer
: how do we define them? The IMPAKT 2012 Working Group Statement. Ann Oncol 2012;23:2997–3006.
. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer
. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer
: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 1991;19:403–10.
. van la Parra RF, Peer PG, Ernst MF, et al. Meta-analysis of predictive factors for non-sentinel lymph node
metastases in breast cancer
patients with a positive SLN. Eur J Surg Oncol 2011;37:290–9.
. Toshikawa C, Koyama Y, Nagahashi M, et al. Predictive factors for non-sentinel lymph node
metastasis in the case of positive sentinel lymph node metastasis in two or fewer nodes in breast cancer
. J Clin Med Res 2015;7:620–6.
. Meattini I, Saieva C, Bertocci S, et al. Predictive factors for additional non-sentinel lymph node
involvement in breast cancer
patients with one positive sentinel node. Tumori 2015;101:78–83.
. Kwon Y, Ro J, Kang HS, et al. Clinicopathological parameters and biological markers predicting non-sentinel node metastasis in sentinel node-positive breast cancer
patients. Oncol Rep 2011;25:1063–71.
. Laudadio J, Quigley DI, Tubbs R, et al. HER2 testing: a review of detection methodologies and their clinical performance. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2007;7:53–64.
. Zhang GH, Yang WT, Zhou XY, et al. Study of the correlation between HER-2 gene and lymphangiogenesis and their prognostic significance in human breast cancer
. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 2007;87:155–60.
. Schoppmann SF, Fenzl A, Nagy K, et al. VEGF-C expressing tumor-associated macrophages in lymph node positive breast cancer
: impact on lymphangiogenesis and survival. Surgery 2006;139:839–46.
. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer
. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2007;131:18–43.
. Terrier C, Tariel O, Coutant C, et al. Comparison of three models to predict non-sentinel lymph node
status in breast cancer
patients with metastatic sentinel lymph nodes: a retrospective study of 77 patients. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2012;41:227–34.
. Gur AS, Unal B, Ozbek U, et al. Validation of breast cancer
nomograms for predicting the non-sentinel lymph node
metastases after a positive sentinel lymph node biopsy
in a multi-center study. Eur J Surg Oncol 2010;36:30–5.
. Chen JY, Chen JJ, Xue JY, et al. Predicting non-sentinel lymph node
metastasis in a Chinese breast cancer
population with 1-2 positive sentinel nodes: development and assessment of a new predictive nomogram. World J Surg 2015;39:2919–27.
Keywords:Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
breast cancer; invasive tumor size; lymphovascular invasion; non-sentinel lymph node; risk factors; sentinel lymph node biopsy