OncotypeDX Recurrence Score Does Not Predict Nodal Burden in Clinically Node Negative Breast Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: OncotypeDX recurrence score (RS)® has been found to predict recurrence and disease-free survival in patients with node negative breast cancer. Whether RS is useful in guiding locoregional therapy decisions is unclear. We sought to evaluate the relationship between RS and lymph node burden. METHODS: Patients with invasive breast cancer who underwent sentinel lymph node dissection from 2010 to 2015 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Patients were excluded if they were clinically node positive or if they received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. RS was classified as low (< 18), intermediate (18-30), or high (> 30). The association between RS, lymph node burden, and disease recurrence was evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed in R version 3.4.0; p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A positive SLN was found in 168 (15%) of 1121 patients. Completion axillary lymph node dissection was performed in 84 (50%) of SLN-positive patients. The remaining 84 (50%) patients had one to two positive SLNs and did not undergo further axillary surgery. RS was low in 58.5%, intermediate in 32.6%, and high in 8.9%. RS was not associated with a positive SLN, number of positive nodes, maximum node metastasis size, or extranodal extension. The median follow-up was 23 months. High RS was not associated with locoregional recurrence (p = 0.07) but was significantly associated with distant recurrence (p = 0.0015). CONCLUSIONS: OncotypeDX RS is not associated with nodal burden in women with clinically node-negative breast cancer, suggesting that RS is not useful to guide decisions regarding extent of axillary surgery for these patients.

Multidisciplinary Intraoperative Assessment of Breast Specimens Reduces Number of Positive Margins.

BACKGROUND: Successful breast-conserving surgery requires achieving negative margins. At our institution, the whole surgical specimen is imaged and then serially sectioned with repeat imaging. A multidisciplinary discussion then determines need for excision of additional margins. The goal of this study was to determine the benefit of each component of this approach in reducing the number of positive margin. METHODS: This single-institution, prospective study included ten breast surgical oncologists who were surveyed to ascertain whether they would have taken additional margins based their review of whole specimen images (WSI) and review of serially sectioned images (SSI). These results were compared with the multidisciplinary decisions (MDD) and pathology results. Margin status was defined using consensus guidelines. RESULTS: One hundred surveys were completed. Margins on the original specimen were positive or close in 21%. After WSI, surgeons reported that they would have taken additional margins in 26 cases, reducing the number of positive/close margins from 21 to 13% (p < 0.001). After SSI, 52 would have taken additional margins; however, the number of positive/close margins remained 13%. MDD resulted in additional margins taken in 56 cases, reducing the number of positive/close margins to 7% (p < 0.001 compared with SSI). CONCLUSIONS: While surgeon review of specimen radiographs can decrease the number of positive or close margins from 21 to 13%, more rigorous multidisciplinary, intraoperative margin assessment reduces the number of close or positive margins to 7%.