| Literature DB >> 25885028 |
Manabu Futamura1, Takahiko Asano2, Kazuhiro Kobayashi3, Kasumi Morimitsu4, Masahito Nawa5, Masako Kanematsu6, Akemi Morikawa7, Ryutaro Mori8, Kazuhiro Yoshida9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) is important for improving the prognosis of patients with node-positive breast cancer. However, ALND can be avoided in select micrometastatic cases, preventing complications such as lymphedema or paresthesia of the upper limb. To appropriately omit ALND from treatment, evaluation of the axillary tumor burden is critical. The present study evaluated a method for preoperative quantification of axillary lymph node metastasis using positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25885028 PMCID: PMC4336728 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-014-0424-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Surg Oncol ISSN: 1477-7819 Impact factor: 2.754
Patient characteristics (n = 171)
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 59.2 ± 14.1 | ||
| Tumor size (mm) | 20.8 ± 11.6 | ||
|
| |||
| I | 60 | 35.1 | |
| IIA | 60 | 35.1 | |
| IIB | 34 | 19.9 | |
| IIIA | 7 | 4.1 | |
| IIIB | 5 | 2.9 | |
| IIIC | 3 | 1.7 | |
| ND | 2 | 1.2 | |
|
| |||
| I | 60 | 35.1 | |
| II | 40 | 23.4 | |
| III | 69 | 40.3 | |
| ND | 2 | 1.2 | |
|
| |||
| Sentinel lymph node biopsy | 101 | 59.1 | |
| Axillary lymph node dissection | 70 | 40.9 | |
|
| |||
| Macrometastasis | 55 | 32.2 | |
| Micrometastasis | 14 | 8.2 | |
| ITC | 5 | 2.9 | |
| Negative | 97 | 56.7 | |
ITC: Isolated tumor cells; ND: Not determined; SD: Standard division.
Axillary lymph node evaluation by PET/CT (mean ± SD)
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
| Age (years) | 56.7 ± 13.6 | 61.7 ± 14.4 |
| Tumor size (mm) | 23.9 ± 12.6a | 18.7 ± 10.4 |
| SUV-LN | 2.289 ± 2.425a | 0.841 ± 0.288 |
| SUV-T | 6.165 ± 3.871a | 3.954 ± 3.524 |
| NT ratio | 0.5 ± 0.707b | 0.316 ± 0.209 |
Patients with metastasis-positive nodes (n = 69) were compared to those with metastasis-negative nodes (n = 102). SD: Standard division. The node-negative group included those diagnosed with isolated tumor cells (ITC).
a P <0.01.
b P = 0.041 vs. the node-negative group.
Comparison of axillary lymph node evaluation results according to the metastases size (mean ± SD)
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Age (years) | 56.6 ± 13.1 | 58.1 ± 17.6 | 61.7 ± 14.4 | 60.9 ± 14.5 |
| Tumor size (mm) | 24.5 ± 13.6a | 20.9 ± 7.2 | 18.7 ± 10.4 | 19.0 ± 10.1 |
| SUV-LN | 2.63 ± 2.607b | 0.935 ± 0.314 | 0.841 ± 0.288 | 0.856 ± 0.293 |
| SUV-T | 6.298 ± 4.122c | 5.487 ± 2.223 | 3.954 ± 3.524 | 4.125 ± 3.427 |
| NT ratio | 0.571 ± 0.776d | 0.227 ± 0.104 | 0.316 ± 0.209 | 0.306 ± 0.205 |
PET/CT parameters were compared between the four groups as follows: macrometastasis (Mac: n = 55), micrometastasis (Mic: n = 14), negative (Neg: n = 102), and micrometastasis and negative (Mic + Neg: n = 116). avs. the Neg group (P <0.01); bvs. the Mic + Neg groups (P <0.01); cvs. the Neg group (P <0.01) or the Mic + Neg group (P <0.01); dvs. the Mic group (P <0.01), Neg group (P = 0.021), or the Mic + Neg groups (P = 0.0155).
Figure 1Representative PET/CT images showing the NTcratio. (a) True positive case, 57-year-old woman with an SUV-T of 8.69, SUV-LN of 3.11, and a NT ratio of 0.381. (b) True negative case, 63-year-old woman with an SUV-T of 9.63, SUV-LN of 1.07, and a NT ratio of 0.111. (c) False positive case, 42-year-old woman with an SUV-T of 1.27, SUV-LN of 1.69, and a NT ratio of 0.751. (d) False negative case, 62-year-old woman with an SUV-T of 10.88, SUV-LN of 1.45, and a NT ratio of 0.132. The primary tumor (right panel, yellow arrow) and axillary lymph node (left panel, white arrow) showing the highest SUV-LN in the axillae are indicated.
Figure 2ROC curves for the NT ratio and SUV-LN. (a) Comparison of the AUCs between patients with Mac and those with Mic or negative nodes (Mic + Neg) in the patient population. The AUCs for the NT ratio and SUV-LN were 0.647 and 0.811, respectively (P <0.01). (b) AUCs comparing the Mac and Mic + Neg patients with an SUV-T ≥2.5 (n = 131). The AUCs for the NT ratio and SUV-LN were 0.757 and 0.797, respectively (P = 0.55, not significant).
Comparison of diagnostic performance for detecting macrometastasis
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Cutoff 0.288 | Cutoff : 1.00 | |
| Sensitivity | 58.2 (46.4-69.2) | 78.2 (67.3-86.7) | 85.5 (74.7-92.8) |
| Specificity | 59.5 (50.0-68.5) | 80.2 (75.0-84.2) | 50.0 (44.9-53.5) |
| PPV | 40.5 (29.6-52.2) | 65.2 (56.1-72.2) | 44.8 ( 39.1-48.6) |
| NPV | 75.0 (64.9-83.4) | 88.3 (83.0-92.5) | 87.9 (78.9-94.0) |
| Accuracy | 59.1 (51.5-66.2) | 81.9 (75–87.3) | 61.4 (54.5-66.1) |
|
| Cutoff 0.199 | Cutoff : 1.00 | |
| Sensitivity | 68.9 (56.4-79.6) | 75.6 (63.5-85.1) | 84.4 (72.7-92.6) |
| Specificity | 65.8 (68.1-72.4) | 76.7 (69.3-82.6) | 54.8 (47.5-59.8) |
| PPV | 55.4 (45.3-64.0) | 65.4 (55.0-73.7) | 53.5 (46.1-58.7) |
| NPV | 77.4 (68.4-85.2) | 83.6 (75.5-90.0) | 85.1 (73.8-92.9) |
| Accuracy | 66.9 (57.4-75.1) | 76.3 (67.1-83.5) | 66.1 (57.7-72.3) |
The diagnostic performance of the NT ratio, SUV-LN, and both techniques in combination is indicated. Cutoff values for each modality were determined based on the sensitivity and specificity. In the whole patient population (n = 171), the cutoffs for the NT ratio and SUV-LN were 0.288 and 1.00, respectively; these values were compared using the McNemar test (P = 0.013). In patients with an SUV-T ≥2.5 (n = 118), the cutoffs for the NT ratio and SUV-LN were 0.199 and 1.00, respectively, with no significant difference noted.