PURPOSE: To determine the anatomic distribution of gross supraclavicular nodes within the supraclavicular fossa using 2-deoxy-2-[F-18] fluoro-d-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scans, and to evaluate likely coverage of specific regions of the supraclavicular fossa using standard radiation fields. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified 33 patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had a PET/CT scan demonstrating hypermetabolic supraclavicular lymph nodes in 2005. The locations of the involved lymph nodes were mapped onto a single CT set of images of the supraclavicular fossa. These lymph nodes were also mapped onto the treatment-planning CT dataset of 4 patients treated in our institution (2 patients with biopsy-proven supraclavicular nodes and 2 patients with clinically negative supraclavicular nodes). RESULTS: We were able to determine the distribution of 52 supraclavicular lymph nodes in 32 patients. Of 32 patients, 28 (87%) had a history of metastatic disease, and 2 patients had isolated nodal recurrences. Five patients had supraclavicular nodes posterior to the vertebral body transverse process, and several lymph nodes were in close proximity to the medial field border, raising the possibility of geographic miss in these areas. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with locally advanced disease, increased coverage of the supraclavicular fossa medially and posteriorly may be warranted.
PURPOSE: To determine the anatomic distribution of gross supraclavicular nodes within the supraclavicular fossa using 2-deoxy-2-[F-18] fluoro-d-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scans, and to evaluate likely coverage of specific regions of the supraclavicular fossa using standard radiation fields. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We identified 33 patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had a PET/CT scan demonstrating hypermetabolic supraclavicular lymph nodes in 2005. The locations of the involved lymph nodes were mapped onto a single CT set of images of the supraclavicular fossa. These lymph nodes were also mapped onto the treatment-planning CT dataset of 4 patients treated in our institution (2 patients with biopsy-proven supraclavicular nodes and 2 patients with clinically negative supraclavicular nodes). RESULTS: We were able to determine the distribution of 52 supraclavicular lymph nodes in 32 patients. Of 32 patients, 28 (87%) had a history of metastatic disease, and 2 patients had isolated nodal recurrences. Five patients had supraclavicular nodes posterior to the vertebral body transverse process, and several lymph nodes were in close proximity to the medial field border, raising the possibility of geographic miss in these areas. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with locally advanced disease, increased coverage of the supraclavicular fossa medially and posteriorly may be warranted.
Authors: Vincent Grégoire; Peter Levendag; Kian K Ang; Jacques Bernier; Marijel Braaksma; Volker Budach; Cliff Chao; Emmanuel Coche; Jay S Cooper; Guy Cosnard; Avraham Eisbruch; Samy El-Sayed; Bahman Emami; Cai Grau; Marc Hamoir; Nancy Lee; Philippe Maingon; Karin Muller; Hervé Reychler Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: J Ragaz; S M Jackson; N Le; I H Plenderleith; J J Spinelli; V E Basco; K S Wilson; M A Knowling; C M Coppin; M Paradis; A J Coldman; I A Olivotto Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1997-10-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M Overgaard; M B Jensen; J Overgaard; P S Hansen; C Rose; M Andersson; C Kamby; M Kjaer; C C Gadeberg; B B Rasmussen; M Blichert-Toft; H T Mouridsen Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-05-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: A Recht; R Gray; N E Davidson; B L Fowble; L J Solin; F J Cummings; G Falkson; H C Falkson; S G Taylor; D C Tormey Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A Katz; E A Strom; T A Buchholz; H D Thames; C D Smith; A Jhingran; G Hortobagyi; A U Buzdar; R Theriault; S E Singletary; M D McNeese Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M Overgaard; P S Hansen; J Overgaard; C Rose; M Andersson; F Bach; M Kjaer; C C Gadeberg; H T Mouridsen; M B Jensen; K Zedeler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1997-10-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David L Schwartz; Eric Ford; Joseph Rajendran; Bevan Yueh; Marc D Coltrera; Jeffery Virgin; Yoshimi Anzai; David Haynor; Barbara Lewellyn; David Mattes; Juergen Meyer; Mark Phillips; Michael Leblanc; Paul Kinahan; Kenneth Krohn; Janet Eary; George E Laramore Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Selin Carkaci; Beatriz E Adrada; Eric Rohren; Wei Wei; Mohammad A Quraishi; Osama Mawlawi; Thomas A Buchholz; Wei Yang Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: John J Cuaron; Brian Chon; Henry Tsai; Anuj Goenka; David DeBlois; Alice Ho; Simon Powell; Eugen Hug; Oren Cahlon Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Puneeth Iyengar; Eric A Strom; Yu-Jing Zhang; Gary J Whitman; Benjamin D Smith; Wendy A Woodward; Tse-Kuan Yu; Thomas A Buchholz Journal: Oncologist Date: 2012-09-14
Authors: Carl DeSelm; T Jonathan Yang; Oren Cahlon; Jamie Tisnado; Atif Khan; Erin Gillespie; Simon Powell; Alice Ho Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-10-24 Impact factor: 7.038