Back

Heterogeneity of survival outcomes in ypN1 breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: The role of residual nodal burden in axillary de-escalation

Luz, F. A. C. d.; Araujo, R. A. d.; Araujo, L. B. d.; Silva, M. J. B.

2026-03-05 oncology
10.64898/2026.03.04.26347623 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe management of residual axillary disease after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) remains controversial, as current recommendations often treat ypN1 breast cancer as a homogeneous entity despite potential prognostic heterogeneity. Evidence supporting uniform axillary surgical strategies across different levels of residual nodal burden is limited. We investigated whether survival associations related to axillary surgical evaluation differ according to residual nodal burden in ypN1 disease, using an adjuvant cohort to validate a SEER-based proxy for surgical extent. MethodsPatients with 1-3 positive lymph nodes were identified in the SEER database (2000-2022) and stratified into neoadjuvant (NAT; n=30,560) and adjuvant (AT; n=197,586) cohorts. Axillary surgical evaluation was categorized as limited (2-3 examined nodes) or extensive ([≥]10 examined nodes). Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods and log-logistic accelerated failure-time models, adjusted with inverse probability of treatment weighting. ResultsIn the ypN1 cohort, limited axillary evaluation was not associated with inferior overall survival among patients with a single residual positive node (IPTW-adjusted HR: 1.15, p=0.134; time ratio [TR]: 0.86, p=0.184). In contrast, limited evaluation was associated with worse survival in patients with two positive nodes (HR: 1.70, 95%CI 1.54-1.87; TR: 0.58, 95%CI 0.53-0.64). The findings were similar when using breast cancer-specific survival as the endpoint. ConclusionsSurvival associations related to axillary surgical evaluation after NAT vary according to residual nodal burden. Axillary de-escalation appears feasible in patients with a single residual positive node but cannot be extrapolated to those with multiple residual nodes, underscoring heterogeneity within ypN1 disease.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Breast Cancer Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.1%
2
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
12.0%
3
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.9%
4
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.9%
5
npj Breast Cancer
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
6
European Journal of Cancer
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 39%
3.5%
8
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.2%
9
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 43%
3.0%
10
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.5%
11
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
12
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 49%
2.0%
13
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.8%
14
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
15
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
16
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
16 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.6%
17
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
18
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
19
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
20
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
21
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.9%
22
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.8%
23
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
24
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
25
BMC Research Notes
29 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
26
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 28%
0.6%
27
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%