Prognostic value of the lymph node ratio for lymph-node-positive breast cancer- is it just a denominator problem?

Jayasinghe, Upali W; Pathmanathan, Nirmala; Elder, Elisabeth; Boyages, John

doi:10.1186/s40064-015-0865-2

SpringerPlus

Table 4 Recent studies (2008–2013) of ratios of involved nodes in breast cancer

From: Prognostic value of the lymph node ratio for lymph-node-positive breast cancer- is it just a denominator problem?

Study	Years	No. of patients	Selection of patients*	LNR cut-off or groups	Follow-up period	Outcome and Prognostic role of LNR in multivariate analysis	Nodes removed median (range)	Population/Institution study
Truong et al. 2008	1988–1997	4571	T₁–T₂	≤0.25,	14 years	BCCS and OS significant	15 (1–50)	Population
Truong et al. 2008	1988–1997	4571	Node-positive	>0.25	14 years	BCCS and OS significant	15 (1–50)	Population
Vinh-Hung et al. 2009	1980-2004	1829	T₁–T₃	1. LNR, continuous.	10 years	BCSS significant for continuous and categorical LNR	14 (1–X)	Population
Vinh-Hung et al. 2009	1980-2004	1829	Node-positive	2. ≤0.20,0.21-0.65, >0.65	10 years	BCSS significant for continuous and categorical LNR	14 (1–X)	Population
Danko et al. 2010	1985-2005	1788	T₁–T₃	≤0.20,0.21-0.65, >0.65	10 years	DFS and OS significant	17 (1–57)	Institution
Danko et al. 2010	1985-2005	1788	Node-positive	≤0.20,0.21-0.65, >0.65	10 years	DFS and OS significant	17 (1–57)	Institution
Schiffman et al. 2011	1996-2007	556	T₁–T₃	≤0.20,0.21-0.65, >0.65	5 years	DFS and OS significant	3 (1–52)	Population
Schiffman et al. 2011	1996-2007	556	Node-positive	≤0.20,0.21-0.65, >0.65	5 years	DFS and OS significant	3 (1–52)	Population
Chagpar et al. 2011	1956-1982	319	T₁–T₃	≤0.20,0.21-0.65, >0.65	40 years	OS significant	13 (1–48)	Institution
Chagpar et al. 2011	1956-1982	319	Node-positive	≤0.20,0.21-0.65, >0.65	40 years	OS significant	13 (1–48)	Institution
Li et al. 2012	1998-2000	127	T1–T4	LNR, continuous.	10.9 years	OS significant	X	Institution
Li et al. 2012	1998-2000	127	Node-positive	LNR, continuous.	10.9 years	OS significant	X	Institution
Saxena et al. 2012	1990-2007	1589	T1–T3	≤ .20,0.21-0.65, >0.65	5 years	OS significant	15 (1–X)	Institution
Saxena et al. 2012	1990-2007	1589	Node-positive	≤ .20,0.21-0.65, >0.65	5 years	OS significant	15 (1–X)	Institution
Duraker et al. 2013	1993–2002	2151	T1–T3	≤ .20,0.21-0.65, >0.65	7 years	DFS significant	14 (1–46)	Institution
Duraker et al. 2013	1993–2002	2151	Node-positive	≤ .20,0.21-0.65, >0.65	7 years	DFS significant	14 (1–46)	Institution
Dings et al. 2013	1999-2005	25315	T1–T3	≤ .20,0.21-0.65, >0.65	10 years	OS significant	14 (1–90)	Population
Dings et al. 2013	1999-2005	25315	Node-positive	≤ .20,0.21-0.65, >0.65	10 years	OS significant	14 (1–90)	Population
Current series	1995	325	T₁–T₃	≤0.20,0.21-0.65, >0.65	10 years	1. BCSS not significant if > 15 nodes removed.	15 (6–43)	Population
			Node-positive			1. BCSS not significant if > 15 nodes removed.
			Node-positive			2. BCSS significant for all patients.

Notes: *Node-positive patients were considered if possible.
BCSS-breast cancer specific survival. DFS-disease-free survival.
OS-overall survival from any cause or cause not mentioned. X–unknown.

Back to article page