Print this page Email this page
Users Online: 24
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 78-84

The relationship between sentinel lymph node metastasis size, extracapsular extension and survival in breast cancer


1 Department of Surgery, Henry Ford Health System, W Grand Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan, USA
2 Department of Pathology, Henry Ford Health System, W Grand Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan, USA
3 Department of Public Health, Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Henry Ford Health System, W Grand Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan, USA

Date of Web Publication16-Oct-2014

Correspondence Address:
S David Nathanson
2799 West Grand Boulevard Detroit, Michigan 48202
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2278-9596.143083

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Background: Sentinel lymph node (SLN) tumor metastasis size (TMS) and extra-capsular extension (ECE) are predictive of non-SLN metastasis. We hypothesized that SLNTMS and ECE would also be predictive of systemic metastasis and death.
Materials and Methods: Data from 2,001 women with breast cancer who underwent SLN biopsy were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. SLNTMS and ECE were measured, reported according to standard pathologic protocols and recorded. Data were analyzed from 252 patients with both SLNTMS and ECE information available. Cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality were observed, calculated and multivariable analyses performed to identify significant interacting variables amongst demographics, clinical stage and pathological characteristics.
Results: Thirty eight treated patients died from any cause and 12 died of cancer during the 16.4 year follow-up. Patients with ER expression had a significantly lower risk of dying of cancer compared to those who lacked ER expression (HR = 0.198, 95% CI 0.06-0.62; P = 0.006). SLNTMS (P = 0.929 and 0.677) and ECE (P = 0.723 and 0.926) were not significant in the multivariable models of either disease specific or all-cause mortality.
Conclusion: Neither SLNTMS nor the presence of ECE affected disease-specific or overall mortality in our breast cancer patients.

Keywords: Breast cancer, extra-capsular extension, lymph node metastasis size, overall survival


How to cite this article:
Rosso KJ, Nathanson S D, Chitale D, Mahan M. The relationship between sentinel lymph node metastasis size, extracapsular extension and survival in breast cancer . Arch Int Surg 2014;4:78-84

How to cite this URL:
Rosso KJ, Nathanson S D, Chitale D, Mahan M. The relationship between sentinel lymph node metastasis size, extracapsular extension and survival in breast cancer . Arch Int Surg [serial online] 2014 [cited 2020 Oct 21];4:78-84. Available from: https://www.archintsurg.org/text.asp?2014/4/2/78/143083


  Introduction Top


The American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z10011 study and similar randomized trials [1],[2] have persuaded surgeons to avoid complete axillary lymph node dissection (CALND) in patients with a positive sentinel lymph node (SLN). In SLN positive patients with small primary disease and clinically negative axilla (cN0) without gross extranodal or extracapsular extension treated with breast conserving surgery (BCS) and radiation, there is a tantalizing argument supporting the less aggressive surgical approach in the axilla. Having yet to be proven by a prospective randomized trial, it is likely that patients with clinical N1, 2 or 3 disease might not fare as well without a CALND. As the number of positive axillary lymph nodes is inversely related to survival, [3] it is also possible that a threshold size of SLN metastasis exists, above which CALND would improve survival in patients with cN0 disease.

A positive correlation exists between primary breast cancer size, SLN [4] and systemic metastasis. [5] SLN tumor metastasis size (SLNTMS) increases the likelihood of non-SLN (NSLN) metastasis [6],[7],[8],[9],[10] and is incorporated into predictive algorithms. [11] The likely effect of pathologically measured SLNTMS on systemic metastasis can be extrapolated from three well-known associations. First, there is an increased risk of systemic metastasis and death in patients who present with clinically suspicious axillary lymphadenopathy [12] compared to cN0, especially if confirmed by image-guided biopsy. [13],[14],[15] Clinically apparent bulky axillary disease is presumably correlated to the amount of tumor in the nodes, however clinical evaluation of the axilla can have high false positive rates. [16] Although no-one has reported a correlation amongst total axillary node tumor volumes and outcome, a correlation exists between clinically obvious pathologically large tumor volume in SLNs and systemic metastasis. Second, survival decreases with an increasing number of involved axillary lymph nodes. [3],[17] There is a direct relationship between cN0 but pathologically positive nodes and survival. [5] Third, if tumor is limited to the SLN disease specific (DSS) and overall survival (OS) are significantly longer than when compared to NSLN involvement. [18],[19] Accurate microscopic measurement of SLNTMS is now a requirement by the College of American Pathologists (ACP). [20],[21] Unlike the statistically important correlation between SLNTMS and systemic metastasis in melanoma, [22],[23] evidence for such a relationship in breast cancer is sparse.

Extra-capsular extension (ECE) occurs when the tumor infiltrates through the capsule into perinodal soft tissue. It is most often seen in the presence of massive nodal tumor volume and may be an index of biologically more aggressive tumor. ECE is one pathologic characteristic used to predict axillary NSLN metastases. [10],[24],[25] Large tumor burden in the SLN and ECE are frequently concurrent, considered aggressive pathologic features [26] and associated with an increased risk of NSLN disease in breast cancer. [10],[24],[25] ECE and SLNTMS are independent predictors of recurrence and death in other tumor types, [22],[23] but their defined relationship to prognosis in breast cancer is not clear. Some authors suggest that ECE is associated with increased NSLN involvement [24] and a higher likelihood of local and distant recurrence. [27] Others suggest ECE has no impact on survival. [18]

In an era where less morbid surgery for breast cancer is becoming standard, it is appropriate to subtype patients and assign treatment modalities based on individual tumor characteristics. ECE, an exclusionary criterion for the Z10011 study, might continue to be associated with a worse outlook if it is proven to predict a worse outcome. If ECE predicts NSLN involvement which positivity predicts worse survival, it seems likely that ECE would also predict a worse outcome. In such cases the surgeon might justify a CALND for a positive SLN. Similarly if SLNTMS is correlated with systemic metastases, the information could be useful in designing further prospective trials that question whether CALND can be avoided in all patients with axillary metastases. We investigated the relationship of SLNTMS and ECE to disease specific (DSS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with cN0 breast cancer.


  Materials and Methods Top


Our prospectively accrued database of 2,001 breast cancer patients followed from one to 16.4 years includes those who underwent SLN biopsy at two major hospitals and three suburban surgicenters [28] inside the Henry Ford Health System (HFHS) of Michigan. Implementation and maintenance of this internet database continues to be re-approved by the Institutional Review Board. All information available on the electronic medical record (EMR) for every new breast cancer patient with cN0 undergoing SLN biopsy was recorded by a professional abstractor in the Public Health Department.

SLN biopsy using filtered 99m Tc radiocolloid and isosulphan blue or dilute methylene blue was performed as previously described at our institution. [28]

Prior to ACP requirements, documentation of SLNTMS was not routinely included in the original pathology report. Archived specimen slides were retrieved whenever possible and SLNTMS measured in cases that size was not recorded.

Clinical breast cancer management

The Breast Cancer Service at HFHS consists of surgical, medical and radiation oncologists that participate in the multimodality management of breast cancer patients. Cases are discussed at a weekly tumor board and National Comprehensive Cancer Center guidelines [29] are used to treat most patients.

Level I and II CALND was offered to any patient with a positive SLN, including micrometastasis, which was standard of care. A small number of patients did not undergo CALND because they declined or were randomized to no further surgery in the Z10011 study. Surgical treatment of the breast primary lesion(s) was at the discretion of the surgeon. Some patients had mastectomies (approximately 25%), but the majority had BCS.

Systemic chemotherapy, appropriate hormonal treatment, trastuzamab (for Her2-neu positive tumors) and some experimental therapies were given and clinical, imaging and laboratory follow-up studies were done at the discretion of the oncologist and surgeon.

The identification of new systemic and/or loco-regional metastases, and the date of any death, was searched for, discovered and recorded in the database as previously described. [30]

Sentinel lymph node tumor metastasis size (SLNTMS) measurement

The SLNs were serially sectioned along the short axis into 2 mm slices, and 4-6 sections, each cut 5 micron thick and were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E). The single largest metastasis identified by routine H&E staining was measured. In cases of multiple SLNs, only the largest metastasis was documented. Single tumor cells widely scattered throughout the SLN is a common mode of spread in lobular carcinoma; in such cases the entire extent of nodal tumor involvement was measured. Cytokeratin immunostain was not routinely performed except to confirm lymph node metastases of invasive lobular carcinoma. Small metastatic tumors measuring 0.2 mm to 10 mm were measured under a microscope with an ocular micrometer. Larger tumor metastases (10 mm and over) were measured on gross cut section using a hand lens and ruler. Micrometastasis was categorized as deposits less than 2 mm.

Evaluating extra-capsular extension (ECE)

ECE was reported when the tumor infiltrated through the capsule into peri-nodal soft tissue. When tissue surrounding the lymph node reacted to the infiltrating tumor by producing excess fibro-collagenous tissue, making the detection of subtle ECE difficult to judge, additional cuts of the paraffin block were obtained to definitively record ECE as present or absent.

Statistical analysis

Patient data included clinical, pathologic and follow-up information. The clinical data included: Age, race, surgery performed, breast irradiation, chemotherapy, hormone manipulation, trastuzamab when indicated. The pathologic data included: Primary tumor size, number of positive axillary nodes, SLNTMS, ECE, receptor (HER2, estrogen, progesterone) status, histology, stage, and lymphovascular invasion (LVI). Patients reported to have no nodal metastases were not included in the SLNTMS analysis. SLNTMS was separately stratified to compare survival between "micrometastasis" and "macrometastasis". Continuous variables were evaluated for normality and those that met assumptions were compared between groups using two-sample t-tests and those that did not were compared using Wilcoxon two-sample tests. Categorical data were compared using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests as appropriate based on cell size. Each factor was examined individually in terms of the univariate effect on survival using Kaplan-Meier plots, log-negative-log plots and log-rank P-values. Any variable that approached statistical significance was placed in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model which was then refined by excluding all but statistically significant variables (P < 0.05). Analyses were done using SAS 9.2 by statistician (MM).


  Results Top


A total of 2,001 patients were available for analysis of which 276 had SLNTMS data, 362 had ECE data and 252 had both SLNTMS and ECE data. Of the 252 patients with both SLNTMS and ECE data, 214 were alive at the last known contact and 38 (15.1%) had died from any cause, not absolutely proven to be cancer associated, and 12 of whom died from cancer. Median follow-up time was 55 (95% CI 48, 60) months.

Of the 252 patients with SLN metastasis in our examined cohort, 55 patients were categorized as having micrometastasis and 197 as having macrometastasis. Neither overall nor disease-specific survival time were significantly different between patients with micrometastasis and patients with macrometastasis on univariate log-rank tests (P = 0.969 and P = 0.432, respectively). The presence of ECE was not a significant factor in the univariate analyses of OS and DSS (P = 0.723 and 0.926, respectively) [Table 1] and [Table 2].
Table 1: Univariate and multivariate analysis for overall survival

Click here to view
Table 2: Univariate and multivariate analysis for cancer specific survival

Click here to view


The presence of LVI was significant predictor of survival in the univariate assessment of OS (P <0.001). When examined in the multivariate model of overall survival, the presence of LVI approached but failed to gain statistical significance (P = 0.068). Advanced stage became a significant independent predictor of overall survival in the multivariate analysis (P <0.001) but in comparing several subgroups of small cell counts, the results of the multivariable analysis became unreliable.

Absence of ER expression was the only significant variable in the univariate analysis of DSS (P = 0.002). When examining ER status as a sole predictor of disease specific survival, patients with ER expression had a significantly lower risk of dying of cancer compared to those who lacked ER expression (HR = 0.198, 95% CI 0.06-0.62; P = 0.006).


  Discussion Top


Our findings suggest that in patients with cN0 disease who had era-defined appropriate breast and axillary surgery followed by systemic and radiation therapy, tumor metastasis size in the SLN was not related to survival. Similarly, ECE did not impact survival, differing from those studies that show an increased likelihood of non-SLN metastasis when ECE was present. [10],[24]

Although ECE is most often seen with larger nodal tumor volume, it has been documented in SLNs with micrometastasis, [26] suggesting a unique biology of metastasis in some cases. Lobular carcinomas may have ECE in spite of small metastatic focus in the lymph node. [26]

Clinical application of the SLN biopsy was first seriously investigated in melanoma patients and from that has become critically important in the staging of breast cancer patients. In melanoma, SLNTMS and ECE are independent predictors of recurrence and mortality with survival directly correlated with the number of metastatic lymph nodes. [31],[32] One of the major differences between breast cancer and melanoma is the effectiveness of adjuvant therapies. Interferon, the only currently recommended adjuvant therapy for melanoma, [33] has a very small impact on survival. [34] Even the established therapies for metastatic melanoma, interleukin 2 and dacarbazine, have meager responses when used for measurable disease. [35],[36],[37] Information regarding the long-term survival impact of the new systemic therapies for melanoma, [38],[39],[40] approved in 2011 by the FDA, is not yet available. In contrast, the significant improvement in breast cancer prognosis over the past thirty years is partly attributable to the effectiveness of systemic therapy. [41] Failure to demonstrate a correlation amongst SLNTMS, ECE and death in our cohort may merely reflect the effectiveness of systemic therapy for breast cancer. Any true differences could be masked by the dominant effects of systemic therapy.

The strengths of this study include use of vigorously maintained records, accuracy and efficiency of data acquisition with minimal data lost and no significant statistical bias, the uniform management of all our cancer patients by a team of breast specialists and the availability of long term follow-up in a stable captured population managed at our institution.

The weaknesses of this study are primarily related to the small number of deaths, a problem also noted in the ACOSOG Z10011 study, [1] and the relatively large number of patients who died of unknown causes. Some of these patients could conceivably have died from metastatic breast cancer which would have impacted the analyses.

Radiation was administered to the whole breast in patients who underwent BCS but usually not in patients who had mastectomies. Axillary radiation was usually given for patients with more than three positive nodes at the discretion of the radiation oncologist. This could be important since radiation can improve overall survival in selected patients. In a meta-analysis of patients who underwent definitive surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, radiation administered after CALND for positive nodes was associated with reduction in breast cancer mortality and recurrence. [42]

Based on this study, surgeons might be prepared to randomize patients with cN0 disease and positive SLNs with ECE to CALND or not, as such studies up to this point exclude patients with ECE or gross extranodal disease. [1],[2] Such a study would eventually be a powerful vindicator of smaller operations in the axilla for a larger population of patients to include those with extracapsular nodal disease. Similarly, larger tumors in the axillary nodes may be candidates for less aggressive axillary surgery. As long as systemic treatment for breast cancer continues to improve and produce cures, less surgery, including the avoidance of CALND, may well become the standard in patients with increased axillary disease burden. Despite the sporadic initial criticism of the Z10011 results, it has revolutionized the approach to the axilla in early breast cancer and stimulated the idea that even more advanced breast cancer patients may avoid complication-laden axillary surgery.

This study was supported by the Nathanson/Rands Chair in Breast Cancer Research.

 
  References Top

1.
Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, Beitsch PD, Whitworth PW, Blumencranz PW, 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.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Galimberti V, Cole BF, Zurrida S, Viale G, Luini A, Veronesi P, 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.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.
Fisher B, Bauer M, Wickerham DL, Redmond CK, Fisher ER, Cruz AB, et al. Relation of number of positive axillary nodes to the prognosis of patients with primary breast cancer. An NSABP update. Cancer 1983;52:1551-7.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.
Nathanson SD. Insights into the mechanisms of lymph node metastasis. Cancer 2003;98:413-23.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.
Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE. Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer 1989;63:181-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Viale G, Maiorano E, Pruneri G, Mastropasqua MG, Valentini S, Galimberti V, et al. Predicting the risk for additional axillary metastases in patients with breast carcinoma and positive sentinel lymph node biopsy. Ann Surg 2005;241:319-25.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Kamath VJ, Giuliano R, Dauway EL, Cantor A, Berman C, Ku NN, et al. Characteristics of the sentinel lymph node in breast cancer predict further involvement of higher-echelon nodes in the axilla: A study to evaluate the need for complete axillary lymph node dissection. Arch Surg 2001;136:688-92.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Kohrt HE, Olshen RA, Bermas HR, Goodson WH, Wood DJ, Henry S, et al.; Bay Area SLN Study. New models and online calculator for predicting non-sentinel lymph node status in sentinel lymph node positive breast cancer patients. BMC Cancer 2008;8:66.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Turner RR, Chu KU, Qi K, Botnick LE, Hansen NM, Glass EC, et al. Pathologic features associated with nonsentinel lymph node metastases in patients with metastatic breast carcinoma in a sentinel lymph node. Cancer 2000;89:574-81.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Abdessalam SF, Zervos EE, Prasad M, Farrar WB, Yee LD, Walker MJ, et al. Predictors of positive axillary lymph nodes after sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer. Am J Surg 2001;182:316-20.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Van Zee KJ, Manasseh DE, Bevilacqua JL, Boolbol SK, Fey JV, Tan LK, et al. A nomogram for predicting the likelihood of additional nodal metastases in breast cancer patients with a positive sentinel node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10:1140-51.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Champion HR, Wallace IW, Prescott RJ. Histology in breast cancer prognosis. Br J Cancer 1972;26:129-38.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]    
13.
Solon JG, Power C, Al-Azawi D, Duke D, Hill AD. Ultrasound-guided core biopsy: An effective method of detecting axillary nodal metastases. J Am Coll Surg 2012;214:12-7.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Nathanson SD. Ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy of axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer. J Am Coll Surg 2012;214:871-2.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]    
15.
Nathanson SD, Burke M, Slater R, Kapke A. Preoperative identification of the sentinel lymph node in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14:3102-10.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Specht MC, Fey JV, Borgen PI, Cody HS 3 rd . Is the clinically positive axilla in breast cancer really a contraindication to sentinel lymph node biopsy? J Am Coll Surg 2005;200:10-4.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Colzani E, Liljegren A, Johansson AL, Adolfsson J, Hellborg H, Hall PF, et al. Prognosis of patients with breast cancer: Causes of death and effects of time since diagnosis, age, and tumor characteristics. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:4014-21.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Jakub JW, Bryant K, Huebner M, Hoskin T, Boughey JC, Reynolds C, et al. The number of axillary lymph nodes involved with metastatic breast cancer does not affect outcome as long as all disease is confined to the sentinel lymph nodes. Ann Surg Oncol 2011;18:86-93.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Cox C, DuPont EL, Furman B, Stowell N, Clark J, Ebert M, et al. The clinical relevance of positive sentinel nodes only versus positive nonsentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer patients. Am J Surg 2003;186:333-6.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Fitzgibbons PL, Page DL, Weaver D, Thor AD, Allred DC, Clark GM, et al. Prognostic factors in breast cancer: College of american pathologists consensus statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124:966-78.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Lester SC, Bose S, Chen Y, Connolly JL, de Baca ME, Fitzgibbons PL, et al. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009;133:1515-38.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Carlson GW, Murray DR, Lyles RH, Staley CA, Hestley A, Cohen C. The amount of metastatic melanoma in a sentinel lymph node: Does it have prognostic significance? Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10:575-81.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Cochran AJ, Wen D, Huang R, Wang H, Elashoff R, Morton DL. Prediction of metastatic melanoma in nonsentinel nodes and clinical outcome based on the primary melanoma and the sentinel node. Mod Pathol 2004;17:747-55.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Pierce LJ, Oberman HA, Strawderman MH, Lichter AS. Microscopic extracapsular extension in the axilla: Is this an indication for axillary radiotherapy? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995;33:253-9.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Stitzenberg KB, Meyer AA, Stern SL, Cance WG, Calvo BF, Klauber-DeMore N, et al. Extracapsular extension of the sentinel lymph node metastasis: A predictor of nonsentinel node tumor burden. Ann Surg 2003;237:607-3.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Cserni G. Axillary sentinel lymph node micrometastases with extracapsular extension: A distinct pattern of breast cancer metastasis? J Clin Pathol 2008;61:115-8.  Back to cited text no. 26
[PUBMED]    
27.
Neri A, Marrelli D, Roviello F, De Stefano A, Guarnieri A, Pallucca E, et al. Prognostic value of extracapsular extension of axillary lymph node metastases in T1 to T3 breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2005;12:246-53.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Nathanson SD, Grogan JK, DeBruyn D, Kapke A, Karvelis K. Breast cancer sentinel lymph node identification rates: The influence of radiocolloid mapping, case volume, and the place of the procedure. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14:1629-37.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
National comprehensive cancer network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology breast cancer. Available from: http://NCCN.org. [Last accessed on 2013 Sep 1].  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Nathanson SD, Kwon D, Kapke A, Alford SH, Chitale D. The role of lymph node metastasis in the systemic dissemination of breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16:3396-405.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Balch CM, Buzaid AC, Soong SJ, Atkins MB, Cascinelli N, Coit DG, et al. Final version of the american joint committee on cancer staging system for cutaneous melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3635-48.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Balch CM, Soong SJ, Gershenwald JE, Thompson JF, Reintgen DS, Cascinelli N, et al. Prognostic factors analysis of 17,600 melanoma patients: Validation of the american joint committee on cancer melanoma staging system. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3622-34.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Food and drug administration: Oncologic drugs advisory committee meeting: Available from: http://www.fda.gov [Last accessed on 2013 Sep 1].  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Kirkwood JM, Strawderman MH, Ernstoff MS, Smith TJ, Borden EC, Blum RH. Interferon alfa-2b adjuvant therapy of high-risk resected cutaneous melanoma: The eastern cooperative oncology group trial EST 1684. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:7-17.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Rosenberg SA, Lotze MT, Yang JC, Aebersold PM, Linehan WM, Seipp CA, et al. Experience with the use of high-dose interleukin-2 in the treatment of 652 cancer patients. Ann Surg 1989;210:474-85.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Atkins MB, Lotze MT, Dutcher JP, Fisher RI, Weiss G, Margolin K, et al. High-dose recombinant interleukin 2 therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma: Analysis of 270 patients treated between 1985 and 1993. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:2105-16.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Falkson CI, Ibrahim J, Kirkwood JM, Coates AS, Atkins MB, Blum RH. Phase III trial of dacarbazine versus dacarbazine with interferon alpha-2b versus dacarbazine with tamoxifen versus dacarbazine with interferon alpha-2b and tamoxifen in patients with metastatic malignant melanoma: An eastern cooperative oncology group study. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:1743-51.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Chapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C, Haanen JB, Ascierto P, Larkin J, et al.; BRIM-3 Study Group. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2507-16.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Hodi FS, O'Day SJ, McDermott DF, Weber RW, Sosman JA, Haanen JB, et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:711-23.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Robert C, Thomas L, Bondarenko I, O'Day S, Weber J, Garbe C, et al. Ipilimumab plus dacarbazine for previously untreated metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2517-26.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Chia SK, Speers CH, D'yachkova Y, Kang A, Malfair-Taylor S, Barnett J, et al. The impact of new chemotherapeutic and hormone agents on survival in a population-based cohort of women with metastatic breast cancer. Cancer 2007;110:973-9.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Whelan TJ, Julian J, Wright J, Jadad AR, Levine ML. Does locoregional radiation therapy improve survival in breast cancer? A meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:1220-9.  Back to cited text no. 42
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2690    
    Printed47    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded206    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal