Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 13/2013

01-12-2013 | Breast Oncology

Impact of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011 trial on Clinical Management of the Axilla in Older Breast Cancer Patients: A SEER-Medicare Analysis

Authors: Holly Caretta-Weyer, BS, Caprice G. Greenberg, MD, MPH, Lee G. Wilke, MD, Jennifer Weiss, MD, MS, Noelle K. LoConte, MD, Marquita Decker, MD, Nicole M. Steffens, MPH, Maureen A. Smith, MD, MPH, PhD, Heather B. Neuman, MD, MS

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 13/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011 demonstrated that eligible breast cancer patients with positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) could be spared an axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) without sacrificing survival or local control. Although heralded as a “practice-changing trial,” some argue that the stringent inclusion criteria limit the trial’s clinical significance. The objective was to assess the potential impact of ACOSOG Z0011 on axillary surgical management of Medicare patients and examine current practice patterns.

Methods

Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥66 years with nonmetastatic invasive breast cancer diagnosed from 2001 to 2007 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database (n = 59,431). Eligibility for ACOSOG Z0011 was determined: SLN mapping, tumor <5 cm, no neoadjuvant treatment, breast conservation; number of positive nodes was determined. Actual surgical axillary management for eligible patients was assessed.

Results

Twelve percent (6,942/59,431) underwent SLN mapping and were node positive. Overall, 2,637 patients (4.4 % (2,637/59,431) of the total cohort, but 38 % (2,637/6,942) of patients with SLN mapping and positive nodes) met inclusion criteria for ACOSOG Z0011, had 1 or 2 positive lymph nodes, and could have been spared an ALND. Of these 2,637 patients, 46 % received a completion ALND and 54 % received only SLN biopsy.

Conclusions

Widespread implementation of ACOSOG Z0011 trial results could potentially spare 38 % of older breast cancer patients who undergo SLN mapping with positive lymph nodes an ALND. However, 54 % of these patients are already managed with SLN biopsy alone, lessening the impact of this trial on clinical practice in older breast cancer patients.
Literature
1.
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. 2010;11(10):927–33.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Viale G, et al. A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(6):546–53.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Posther KE, McCall LM, Blumencranz PW, et al. Sentinel node skills verification and surgeon performance: data from a multicenter clinical trial for early-stage breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2005;242(4):593–9. Discussion 599–602.PubMed
4.
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(6):569–75.PubMedCrossRef
5.
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(3):426–32. Discussion 432–3.PubMed
6.
Caudle AS, Hunt KK, Kuerer HM, et al. Multidisciplinary considerations in the implementation of the findings from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011 study: a practice-changing trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(9):2407–12.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Yi M, Kuerer HM, Mittendorf EA, et al. Impact of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 criteria applied to a contemporary patient population. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216(1):105–13.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Caudle AS, Hunt KK, Tucker SL, et al. American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011: impact on surgeon practice patterns. Ann Surg Ooncol. 2012;19(10):3144–51.CrossRef
9.
Guth U, Myrick ME, Viehl CT, Schmid SM, Obermann EC, Weber WP. The post ACOSOG Z0011 era: does our new understanding of breast cancer really change clinical practice? Eur J Surg Oncol 2012;38(8):645–50.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Potosky AL, Riley GF, Lubitz JD, Mentnech RM, Kessler LG. Potential for cancer related health services research using a linked Medicare-tumor registry database. Med Care. 1993;31(8):732–48.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Schrag D, Bach PB, Riley GF. Overview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population. Med Care. 2002;40(8 Suppl):IV-3–18.
12.
Dimick JB, Osborne NH, Hall BL, Ko CY, Birkmeyer JD. Risk adjustment for comparing hospital quality with surgery: how many variables are needed? J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210(4):503–8.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(6):613–9.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chron Dis. 1987;40(5):373–83.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Cancer AJCo. AJCC cancer staging manual, 6th edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott Raven Publishers; 2002.
16.
Wilke LG, McCall LM, Posther KE, et al. Surgical complications associated with sentinel lymph node biopsy: results from a prospective international cooperative group trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13(4):491–500.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Ashikaga T, Krag DN, Land SR, et al. Morbidity results from the NSABP B-32 trial comparing sentinel lymph node dissection versus axillary dissection. J Surg Oncol. 2010;102(2):111–8.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Goyal A, Newcombe RG, Chhabra A, Mansel RE. Morbidity in breast cancer patients with sentinel node metastases undergoing delayed axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) compared with immediate ALND. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(1):262–7.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Yi M, Giordano SH, Meric-Bernstam F, et al. Trends in and outcomes from sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) alone vs. SLNB with axillary lymph node dissection for node-positive breast cancer patients: experience from the SEER database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(Suppl 3):343–51.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Setton J, Cody H, Tan L, et al. Radiation field design and regional control in sentinel lymph node-positive breast cancer patients with omission of axillary dissection. Cancer. 2012;118(8):1994–2003.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Fan YG, Tan YY, Wu CT, et al. The effect of sentinel node tumor burden on non-sentinel node status and recurrence rates in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2005;12(9):705–11.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Yegiyants S, Romero LM, Haigh PI, DiFronzo LA. Completion axillary lymph node dissection not required for regional control in patients with breast cancer who have micrometastases in a sentinel node. Arch Surg (Chicago, IL: 1960). 2010;145(6):564–9.
23.
Fournier K, Schiller A, Perry RR, Laronga C. Micrometastasis in the sentinel lymph node of breast cancer does not mandate completion axillary dissection. Ann Surg. 2004;239(6):859–63. Discussion 863–5.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Langer I, Guller U, Viehl CT, et al. Axillary lymph node dissection for sentinel lymph node micrometastases may be safely omitted in early-stage breast cancer patients: long-term outcomes of a prospective study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(12):3366–74.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Meretoja TJ, Vironen JH, Heikkila PS, Leidenius MH. Outcome of selected breast cancer patients with micrometastasis or isolated tumor cells in sentinel node biopsy and no completion axillary lymph node dissection. J Surg Oncol. 2010;102(3):215–9.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Pernas S, Gil M, Benitez A, et al. Avoiding axillary treatment in sentinel lymph node micrometastases of breast cancer: a prospective analysis of axillary or distant recurrence. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(3):772-7.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Cohen ME, Dimick JB, Bilimoria KY, Ko CY, Richards K, Hall BL. Risk adjustment in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: a comparison of logistic versus hierarchical modeling. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209(6):687–93.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Rudenstam CM, Zahrieh D, Forbes JF, et al. Randomized trial comparing axillary clearance versus no axillary clearance in older patients with breast cancer: first results of International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 10-93. J Clin Oncol.2006;24(3):337–44.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Martelli G, Boracchi P, Ardoino I, et al. Axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in older patients with T1N0 breast cancer: 15-year results of a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2012;256(6):920–4.PubMedCrossRef
30.
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(4):297–305.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Vanderveen KA, Paterniti DA, Kravitz RL, Bold RJ. Diffusion of surgical techniques in early stage breast cancer: variables related to adoption and implementation of sentinel lymph node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14(5):1662–9.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Impact of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011 trial on Clinical Management of the Axilla in Older Breast Cancer Patients: A SEER-Medicare Analysis
Authors
Holly Caretta-Weyer, BS
Caprice G. Greenberg, MD, MPH
Lee G. Wilke, MD
Jennifer Weiss, MD, MS
Noelle K. LoConte, MD
Marquita Decker, MD
Nicole M. Steffens, MPH
Maureen A. Smith, MD, MPH, PhD
Heather B. Neuman, MD, MS
Publication date
01-12-2013
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 13/2013
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-3193-1

Other articles of this Issue 13/2013

Annals of Surgical Oncology 13/2013 Go to the issue

Gastrointestinal Oncology

Pathologic Discordance of Differentiation Between Endoscopic Biopsy and Postoperative Specimen in Mucosal Gastric Adenocarcinomas

Gastrointestinal Oncology

Interval Between Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy and Surgery for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Does Delayed Surgery Impact Outcome?

Urologic Oncology

Risk Group Stratification Based on Preoperative Factors to Predict Survival after Nephroureterectomy in Patients with Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma

Gastrointestinal Oncology

Priority of Lymph Node Dissection for Siewert Type II/III Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction

Melanomas

Limitations of Lymph Node Ratio, Evidence-Based Benchmarks, and the Importance of a Thorough Lymph Node Dissection in Melanoma

Urologic Oncology

Validation of the MSKCC and Heng Risk Criteria Models for Predicting Survival in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Sunitinib