| Literature DB >> 26110204 |
S You1, D K Kang1, Y S Jung1, Y-S An1, G S Jeon2, T H Kim1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of ultrasound, MRI and fluorine-18 fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (¹⁸F-FDG PET)/CT for the diagnosis of metastatic axillary lymph node (ALN) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and to find out histopathological factors affecting the diagnostic performance of these imaging modalities.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26110204 PMCID: PMC4651396 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20150143
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Radiol ISSN: 0007-1285 Impact factor: 3.039
Patient characteristics
| Characteristics | All ( | Patients for ultrasound analysis ( | Patients for MRI analysis ( | Patients for positron emission tomography/CT analysis ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) (mean ± standard deviation) | 46.4 ± 10.0 | 46.3 ± 9.1 | 46.3 ± 9.2 | 45.7 ± 8.9 |
| Tumour size (cm) (mean ± standard deviation) | 3.8 ± 2.2 | 3.8 ± 2.2 | 3.8 ± 2.2 | 4.0 ± 2.1 |
| T stage | ||||
| T1 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 9 |
| T2 | 79 | 76 | 78 | 62 |
| T3 | 16 | 16 | 14 | 13 |
| T4 | 21 | 20 | 21 | 15 |
| Tumour histology | ||||
| Infiltrating ductal | 131 | 127 | 128 | 91 |
| Infiltrating lobular | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Other | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Nuclear grade | ||||
| Low | 56 | 54 | 55 | 37 |
| High | 57 | 55 | 55 | 44 |
| Histological grade | ||||
| Low | 72 | 70 | 71 | 50 |
| High | 42 | 40 | 40 | 32 |
| Oestrogen receptor | ||||
| Negative | 41 | 40 | 40 | 30 |
| Positive | 98 | 95 | 96 | 69 |
| Progesterone receptor | ||||
| Negative | 68 | 66 | 67 | 48 |
| Positive | 71 | 69 | 69 | 51 |
| HER2 | ||||
| Negative | 98 | 96 | 97 | 72 |
| Positive | 41 | 39 | 39 | 27 |
Sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value (PPV) and negative-predictive value (NPV) of ultrasound, MRI and positron emission tomography (PET)/CT after neoadjuvant chemotherapy
| Diagnostic performance | Ultrasound | MRI | PET/CT | Ultrasound + MRI | Ultrasound + PET/CT | MRI + PET/CT | Ultrasound + MRI + PET/CT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 50% (48/96) | 72% (70/97) | 22% (16/73) | 77% (72/94) | 54% (38/71) | 77% (54/70) | 81% (56/69) |
| Specificity | 77% (30/39) | 54% (21/39) | 85% (22/26) | 51% (20/39) | 73% (19/26) | 42% (11/26) | 42% (11/26) |
| PPV | 84% (48/57) | 80% (70/88) | 80% (16/20) | 79% (72/91) | 84% (38/45) | 78% (54/69) | 79% (56/71) |
| NPV | 38% (30/78) | 44% (21/48) | 28% (22/79) | 48% (20/42) | 37% (19/52) | 41% (11/27) | 46% (11/24) |
Comparison of diagnostic abilities among imaging modalities
| Imaging | Az value | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ultrasound | MRI | PET/CT | Ultrasound + MRI | Ultrasound + PET/CT | MRI + PET/CT | Ultrasound + MRI + PET/CT | ||
| Ultrasound | 0.626 | – | 0.496 | 0.763 | 0.317 | 0.584 | 0.868 | |
| MRI | 0.588 | 0.496 | – | 0.336 | 0.079 | 0.424 | 0.317 | |
| PET/CT | 0.532 | 0.336 | – | 0.182 | 0.27 | 0.138 | ||
| Ultrasound + MRI | 0.610 | 0.763 | 0.079 | 0.182 | – | 0.666 | 0.317 | 0.317 |
| Ultrasound + PET/CT | 0.634 | 0.317 | 0.424 | 0.666 | – | 0.496 | 0.763 | |
| MRI + PET/CT | 0.596 | 0.584 | 0.317 | 0.27 | 0.317 | 0.496 | – | 0.079 |
| Ultrasound + MRI + PET/CT | 0.617 | 0.868 | 0.138 | 0.317 | 0.763 | 0.079 | – | |
PET, positron emission tomography.
*p < 0.05.
Figure 1.Receiver operating characteristic analysis curves for the diagnosis of axillary lymph node metastasis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). PET, positron emission tomography; US, ultrasound.
Association of diagnostic performance of ultrasound, MRI and positron emission tomography (PET)/CT with histopathological factors
| Histological factor | Ultrasound | MRI | PET/CT | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correct diagnosis | Incorrect diagnosis | Correct diagnosis | Incorrect diagnosis | Correct diagnosis | Incorrect diagnosis | ||||
| Initial tumour size | 3.75 ± 2.19 | 3.86 ± 2.27 | 0.792 | 3.6 ± 2.24 | 4.18 ± 2.17 | 0.153 | 4.3 ± 2.3 | 3.89 ± 2.15 | 0.371 |
| Tumour size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy | 1.65 ± 1.81 | 2.17 ± 2.21 | 0.133 | 1.74 ± 1.83 | 2.17 ± 2.3 | 0.24 | 1.95 ± 2.35 | 2.37 ± 2.04 | 0.343 |
| Percentage diameter decrease | 53.9 ± 39.48 | 45.8 ± 35.35 | 0.224 | 50.28 ± 38.96 | 49.12 ± 37.44 | 0.869 | 57.16 ± 42.92 | 37.85 ± 38.79 | |
| Size of tumour deposit in lymph node | 0.97 ± 0.63 | 0.5 ± 0.31 | 0.84 ± 0.61 | 0.57 ± 0.42 | 1.09 ± 0.6 | 0.61 ± 0.49 | |||
| Perinodal tumour extension | 0.709 | 0.329 | 0.904 | ||||||
| Negative | 16 (35.6%) | 14 (31.8%) | 19 (30.2%) | 11 (40.7%) | 7 (36.8%) | 18 (35.3%) | |||
| Positive | 29 (64.4%) | 30 (68.2%) | 44 (69.8%) | 16 (59.3%) | 12 (63.2%) | 33 (64.7%) | |||
| Oestrogen receptor | 0.061 | ||||||||
| Negative | 30 (38.5%) | 10 (17.5%) | 32 (35.2%) | 8 (17.8%) | 16 (41%) | 14 (23.3%) | |||
| Positive | 48 (61.5%) | 47 (82.5%) | 59 (64.8%) | 37 (82.2%) | 23 (59%) | 46 (76.7%) | |||
| Progesterone receptor | 0.318 | 0.248 | |||||||
| Negative | 41 (52.6%) | 25 (43.9%) | 48 (52.7%) | 19 (42.2%) | 24 (61.5%) | 24 (40%) | |||
| Positive | 37 (47.4%) | 32 (56.1%) | 43 (47.3%) | 26 (57.8%) | 15 (38.5%) | 36 (60%) | |||
| HER2 | 0.183 | 0.716 | |||||||
| Negative | 52 (66.7%) | 44 (77.2%) | 64 (70.3%) | 33 (73.3%) | 24 (61.5%) | 48 (80%) | |||
| Positive | 26 (33.3%) | 13 (22.8%) | 27 (29.7%) | 12 (26.7%) | 15 (38.5%) | 12 (20%) | |||
| Nuclear grade | 0.778 | 0.313 | 0.37 | ||||||
| Low | 28 (48.3%) | 26 (51%) | 34 (46.6%) | 21 (56.8%) | 10 (38.5%) | 27 (49.1%) | |||
| High | 30 (51.7%) | 25 (49%) | 39 (53.4%) | 16 (43.2%) | 16 (61.5%) | 28 (50.9%) | |||
| Histological grade | 0.071 | 0.262 | |||||||
| Low | 33 (55.9%) | 37 (72.5%) | 44 (60.3%) | 27 (71.1%) | 11 (40.7%) | 39 (70.9%) | |||
| High | 26 (44.1%) | 14 (27.5%) | 29 (39.7%) | 11 (28.9%) | 16 (59.3%) | 16 (29.1%) | |||
*p < 0.05.
Logistic regression analysis for variables associated with diagnostic performance of ultrasound, MRI and positron emission tomography (PET)/CT
| Variables | Standard error | Odds ratio | 95% confidence interval | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ultrasound | |||||
| Size of tumour deposition within LN | 2.571 | 0.760 | 13.073 | 2.949–57.964 | |
| Oestrogen receptor | −0.981 | 0.599 | 0.375 | 0.116–1.213 | 0.101 |
| MRI | |||||
| Size of tumour deposition within LN | 1.127 | 0.579 | 3.085 | 0.992–9.592 | 0.052 |
| Oestrogen receptor | −0.333 | 0.599 | 0.717 | 0.221–2.320 | 0.578 |
| PET/CT | |||||
| Size of tumour deposition within LN | 1.867 | 0.778 | 6.468 | 1.407–29.737 | |
| Percentage diameter decrease | −0.002 | 0.010 | 0.998 | 0.978–1.018 | 0.812 |
| Progesterone receptor | −1.363 | 0.879 | 0.256 | 0.046–1.434 | 0.121 |
| HER2 | −0.342 | 1.036 | 0.710 | 0.093–5.411 | 0.741 |
| Histological grade | 1.808 | 0.926 | 6.101 | 0.994–37.46 | 0.051 |
LN, lymph node.
Figure 2.A 44-year-old female who had invasive ductal carcinoma with negative estrogen receptor and positive HER2 in the right breast and biopsy confirmed metastatic lymph node in right axilla. Initial ultrasound (a) and MRI (b) showed the axillary lymph node (ALN) showing eccentric cortical thickening >3 mm. Initial positron emission tomography (PET)-CT (c) also showed increased fluorine-18 fludeoxyglucose uptake in the right ALN (peak standardized uptake value = 2.8). After neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) treatment, ultrasound (d) and PET-CT (f) showed no evidence of metastasis in right ALN. However, MRI (e) after NAC showed ALN showing 3-mm eccentric cortical thickening suggesting remaining metastasis.