OBJECTIVES: The Z0011 trial questioned the role of axillary ultrasound (AxUS) in preoperative staging of breast cancer in patients with ≤2 positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLN). The purpose of this study was to correlate the number of abnormal nodes on AxUS with final nodal burden and determine the utility of AxUS with sampling (AxUS + S) in preoperative staging. METHODS: Six hundred and seventy-nine patients underwent pre-operative AxUS. Suspicious nodes were sampled. Negative axillae proceeded to SLN biopsy. The number of abnormal nodes identified on ultrasound and final histology as well as sensitivity and specificity for AxUS + S were calculated. Subgroup analysis was performed on Z0011 eligible patients. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-six patients had positive axillary nodes on final histology with 169 detected by AxUS + S (sensitivity 86.2%, specificity 100%, PPV 100 %, NPV 71.9%). Patients with nodal metastases identified by AxUS had a mean burden of 7.3 nodes on histology (1 node on AxUS = 5.2 nodes on histology, 2 nodes on AxUS = 7.5 nodes, >2 nodes = 10.1 nodes). Patients diagnosed on SLNB had a mean burden of 2.2 nodes. CONCLUSION: A single nodal metastasis detected on AxUS + S correlated with a mean of 5.2 nodes on final histology highlighting that AxUS remains essential in guiding appropriate management of the axilla in breast cancer. KEY POINTS: • Axillary ultrasound +/- sampling is an essential technique in preoperative axillary staging. • Axillary ultrasound findings correlate with final histological axillary node disease burden. • Axillary ultrasound can help triage patients who require axillary lymph node dissection. • The role of axillary ultrasound in breast cancer staging continues to evolve.
OBJECTIVES: The Z0011 trial questioned the role of axillary ultrasound (AxUS) in preoperative staging of breast cancer in patients with ≤2 positive sentinel lymph nodes (SLN). The purpose of this study was to correlate the number of abnormal nodes on AxUS with final nodal burden and determine the utility of AxUS with sampling (AxUS + S) in preoperative staging. METHODS: Six hundred and seventy-nine patients underwent pre-operative AxUS. Suspicious nodes were sampled. Negative axillae proceeded to SLN biopsy. The number of abnormal nodes identified on ultrasound and final histology as well as sensitivity and specificity for AxUS + S were calculated. Subgroup analysis was performed on Z0011 eligible patients. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-six patients had positive axillary nodes on final histology with 169 detected by AxUS + S (sensitivity 86.2%, specificity 100%, PPV 100 %, NPV 71.9%). Patients with nodal metastases identified by AxUS had a mean burden of 7.3 nodes on histology (1 node on AxUS = 5.2 nodes on histology, 2 nodes on AxUS = 7.5 nodes, >2 nodes = 10.1 nodes). Patients diagnosed on SLNB had a mean burden of 2.2 nodes. CONCLUSION: A single nodal metastasis detected on AxUS + S correlated with a mean of 5.2 nodes on final histology highlighting that AxUS remains essential in guiding appropriate management of the axilla in breast cancer. KEY POINTS: • Axillary ultrasound +/- sampling is an essential technique in preoperative axillary staging. • Axillary ultrasound findings correlate with final histological axillary node disease burden. • Axillary ultrasound can help triage patients who require axillary lymph node dissection. • The role of axillary ultrasound in breast cancer staging continues to evolve.
Authors: P A Carroll; D O'Mahony; R McDermott; T Boyle; B Dunne; M J Kennedy; E M Connolly Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2011-01-23 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Hiroyuki Abe; David Schacht; Charlene A Sennett; Gillian M Newstead; Robert A Schmidt Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: P Britton; P Moyle; J R Benson; A Goud; R Sinnatamby; S Barter; M Gaskarth; E Provenzano; M Wallis Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2010-03-21 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Anthony Lucci; Linda Mackie McCall; Peter D Beitsch; Patrick W Whitworth; Douglas S Reintgen; Peter W Blumencranz; A Marilyn Leitch; Sukumal Saha; Kelly K Hunt; Armando E Giuliano Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-05-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Su Min Ha; Jung Min Chang; Soo-Yeon Kim; Su Hyun Lee; Eun Sil Kim; Yeon Soo Kim; Nariya Cho; Woo Kyung Moon Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-01-03 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Huong T Le-Petross; Linda M McCall; Kelly K Hunt; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Gretchen M Ahrendt; Lee G Wilke; Karla V Ballman; Judy C Boughey Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2018-01-30 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Rosalind P Candelaria; Beatriz E Adrada; Kenneth Hess; Lumarie Santiago; Deanna L Lane; Alastair M Thompson; Stacy L Moulder; Monica L Huang; Elsa M Arribas; Gaiane M Rauch; Jessica W T Leung; W Fraser Symmans; Vicente Valero; Elizabeth E Ravenberg; Jason B White; Wei Tse Yang Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2020-07-10 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Julia Caroline Radosa; Erich-Franz Solomayer; Martin Deeken; Peter Minko; Julia Sarah Maria Zimmermann; Askin Canguel Kaya; Marc Philipp Radosa; Lisa Stotz; Sarah Huwer; Carolin Müller; Maria Margarete Karsten; Gudrun Wagenpfeil; Christoph Georg Radosa Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-04-29 Impact factor: 4.339