External Validation of the SERC Trial Population: Comparison with the Multicenter French Cohort, the Swedish and SENOMIC Trial Populations for Breast Cancer Patients with Sentinel Node Micro-Metastasis

Simple Summary After the results of many trials, it is now accepted to omit axillary dissection in selected patients with limited axillary involvement. However, the external validity of these trials is questionable. Our study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the real French population representativity in the SERC (Sentinelle Envahi et Randomisation du Curage) trial population for patients with breast cancer (BC) associated with sentinel node (SN) micro-metastasis and the differences between the studied population and the real French population. The secondary aim was to compare the French and the Swedish populations of patients with SN micro-metastasis. The findings of our study in addition to the previously demonstrated concordance between the SENOMIC (Sentinelle node Micrometastasis) trial and the Swedish National Breast Cancer Registry (NKBC) populations implied that the results of both the SERC and the SENOMIC trials can be applied to both the French and Swedish real populations. Abstract Many trials confirmed the safety of omitting axillary dissection in the selected patients treated for early breast cancer. The external validity of these trials is questionable. Our study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the French population representativity in the SERC trial and the differences between these two populations as well as comparing the French and the Swedish populations (the SENOMIC trial population and the Swedish National Breast Cancer Registry (NKBC) cohort) of patients with sentinel node (SN) micro-metastasis. A higher rate of smaller tumors and grade 1 tumors was observed in the French cohort when compared to the SERC population. Our findings conclude that both French populations show similar characteristics. Positive non-sentinel node (NSN) rates at completion axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) were 10.28 % and 11.3 % in the SERC trial and French cohort, respectively (p = 0.5). The rate of grade 1 tumors was lower in the SENOMIC trial (16.2%) and in the NKBC cohort (17.4%) compared to the SERC trial population (27.3%) and the French cohort (34.4%). Our findings in addition to the previously demonstrated concordance between the SENOMIC trial and the NKBC populations imply that the results of both the SERC and the SENOMIC trials can be applied to both French and Swedish real populations.

[1]  P. Colombo,et al.  Is sentinel lymph node biopsy alone accurate for breast cancer mastectomy? Results of a cohort study of 2423 patients. , 2019 .

[2]  J. de Boniface,et al.  Do clinical trials truly mirror their target population? An external validity analysis of national register versus trial data from the Swedish prospective SENOMIC trial on sentinel node micrometastases in breast cancer , 2019, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[3]  R. Gelber,et al.  Axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with breast cancer and sentinel-node micrometastases (IBCSG 23-01): 10-year follow-up of a randomised, controlled phase 3 trial. , 2018, The Lancet. Oncology.

[4]  S. Beriwal,et al.  Is completion axillary lymph node dissection necessary in patients who are underrepresented in the ACOSOG Z0011 trial? , 2018, Advances in radiation oncology.

[5]  E. Darai,et al.  Overview of the pathological results and treatment characteristics in the first 1000 patients randomized in the SERC trial: axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with involved sentinel node , 2018, BMC Cancer.

[6]  A. Giuliano,et al.  Effect of Axillary Dissection vs No Axillary Dissection on 10-Year Overall Survival Among Women With Invasive Breast Cancer and Sentinel Node Metastasis: The ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) Randomized Clinical Trial , 2017, JAMA.

[7]  L. Rydén,et al.  Survival and axillary recurrence following sentinel node-positive breast cancer without completion axillary lymph node dissection: the randomized controlled SENOMAC trial , 2017, BMC Cancer.

[8]  P. Bruzzi,et al.  SINODAR ONE, an ongoing randomized clinical trial to assess the role of axillary surgery in breast cancer patients with one or two macrometastatic sentinel nodes. , 2016, Breast.

[9]  R. Rouzier,et al.  Survival impact and predictive factors of axillary recurrence after sentinel biopsy. , 2016, European journal of cancer.

[10]  D. Dodwell,et al.  POSNOC: A Randomised Trial Looking at Axillary Treatment in Women with One or Two Sentinel Nodes with Macrometastases. , 2015, Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)).

[11]  J. Johnston,et al.  A literature review on the representativeness of randomized controlled trial samples and implications for the external validity of trial results , 2015, Trials.

[12]  I. Voutsadakis,et al.  Axillary lymph node management in breast cancer with positive sentinel lymph node biopsy. , 2015, World journal of clinical oncology.

[13]  M. Reed,et al.  Axillary treatment in women with one or two sentinel nodes with macrometastases: more evidence is needed to inform practice. , 2014, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  I. Voutsadakis,et al.  Recommendation for omitting axillary lymph node dissection should be individualized in patients with breast cancer with one or two positive sentinel lymph nodes. , 2014, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  S. Edge,et al.  Reply to I.A. Voutsadakis et al and A. Goyal et al. , 2014, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[16]  G. Houvenaeghel,et al.  [Sentinel node invasion: is it necessary to perform axillary lymph node dissection? Randomized trial SERC]. , 2014, Bulletin du cancer.

[17]  A. Luini,et al.  Axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with sentinel-node micrometastases (IBCSG 23-01): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial. , 2013, The Lancet. Oncology.

[18]  G. Hortobagyi,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 , 2011, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[19]  A. Giuliano,et al.  Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. , 2011, JAMA.

[20]  T. Julian,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. , 2010, The Lancet. Oncology.

[21]  P. Rothwell,et al.  External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?” , 2005, The Lancet.

[22]  J. Norrie,et al.  Pragmatic Trials. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  R. Fábregas,et al.  Complete Axillary Lymph Node Dissection Versus Clinical Follow-up in Breast Cancer Patients with Sentinel Node Micrometastasis: Final Results from the Multicenter Clinical Trial AATRM 048/13/2000 , 2012, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[24]  D. Miles,et al.  Reply to , 2004 .