| Literature DB >> 27277343 |
Yoshiaki Shinden1,2, Hiroki Ueo1,3, Taro Tobo4, Ayako Gamachi5, Mitsuaki Utou4, Hisateru Komatsu1, Sho Nambara1, Tomoko Saito1, Masami Ueda1, Hidenari Hirata1, Shotaro Sakimura1, Yuki Takano1, Ryutaro Uchi1, Junji Kurashige1, Sayuri Akiyoshi1, Tomohiro Iguchi1, Hidetoshi Eguchi1, Keishi Sugimachi1, Yoko Kubota6, Yuichiro Kai6, Kenji Shibuta6, Yuko Kijima2, Heiji Yoshinaka2, Shoji Natsugoe2, Masaki Mori7, Yoshihiko Maehara3, Masayo Sakabe8, Mako Kamiya8, John W Kakareka9, Thomas J Pohida9, Peter L Choyke10, Hisataka Kobayashi10, Hiroaki Ueo6, Yasuteru Urano8,11, Koshi Mimori1.
Abstract
Sentinel lymph node biopsy is performed as a standard procedure in breast cancer surgery, and the development of quick and simple methods to detect metastatic lesions is in high demand. Here, we validated a new fluorescent method using γ-glutamyl hydroxymethyl rhodamine green to diagnose metastatic lymph nodes in breast cancer. One hundred and forty-nine lymph nodes from 38 breast cancer patients were evaluated in this study. Comparison of fluorescent and pathological images showed that this fluorescent method was successful for visualizing breast cancer cells in lymph nodes. This method had a sufficiently high sensitivity (97%), specificity (79%) and negative predictive value (99%) to render it useful for an intraoperative diagnosis of cancer. These preliminary findings suggest that this novel method is useful for distinguishing non-cancerous specimens from those in need of careful examination and could help save time and cost for surgeons and pathologists.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27277343 PMCID: PMC4899706 DOI: 10.1038/srep27525
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Clinicopathological information of the enrolled patients.
| Factors | All patients (n = 38) | Without lymph node metastasis (n = 27) | With lymph node metastasis (n = 11) | p value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| number | % | number | % | number | % | ||
| Age (mean) | 59.6 | 63 ± 11 | 58 ± 14 | 0.15 | |||
| T | |||||||
| is-1 | 21 | 55 | 17 | 63 | 4 | 36 | 0.13 |
| 2–4 | 17 | 45 | 10 | 37 | 7 | 64 | |
| Histology | |||||||
| Invasive ductal carcinoma | 27 | 71 | 17 | 63 | 10 | 91 | 0.055 |
| Papillo-tubular | 6 | 6 | 0 | ||||
| Solid-tubular | 8 | 5 | 3 | ||||
| Scirrhous | 8 | 4 | 4 | ||||
| Other | 5 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| DCIS | 7 | 18 | 7 | 26 | 0 | 0 | |
| Special types | 4 | 11 | 3 | 11 | 1 | 9 | |
| HER2 receptor | |||||||
| Positive | 6 | 20 | 2 | 11 | 4 | 36 | 0.09 |
| Negative | 24 | 80 | 17 | 89 | 7 | 64 | |
| Lymph node metastasis | |||||||
| Absent | 27 | 71 | 7 | 41 | 1 | 10 | 0.09 |
| Present | 11 | 29 | 10 | 59 | 9 | 90 | |
| Lymphatic invasion | |||||||
| 0, 1 | 27 | 90 | 18 | 95 | 9 | 82 | 0.26 |
| 2, 3 | 3 | 10 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 18 | |
| Venous invasion | |||||||
| 0, 1 | 30 | 100 | 19 | 100 | 11 | 100 | |
| 2, 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Operation | |||||||
| Mastectomy + ALND | 17 | 45 | |||||
| Mastectomy + SLNB | 3 | 8 | |||||
| BCS | 1 | 3 | |||||
| BCS + SLNB | 17 | 45 | |||||
*T factor was assessed according to the TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors, 7th edition20.
**Not available for one case, and no examination was performed for seven DCIS cases.
***Breast conserving surgery.
Figure 1Detection of cancer cells in lymph nodes using gGlu-HMRG fluorescence.
(a) Macroscopic image of resected lymph nodes from one breast cancer surgery case. (b) Fluorescent image of the same lymph nodes as in (a) before administration of gGlu-HMRG. Autofluorescence is indicated by the faint green color. Fluorescent images (c) 5 minutes and (d) 15 minutes after administration of gGlu-HMRG. (e,f) H&E staining of the same lymph node second from the left in (a–d)). This lymph node was diagnosed pathologically as metastatic. (f) Metastatic regions were indicated by green color. (g) Magnified fluorescent image of the same lymph node in (e,f) 15 minutes after administration of gGlu-HMRG.
Figure 2Detection of metastasis in lymph nodes using gGlu-HMRG fluorescence.
(a) Fluorescent image of four resected lymph nodes before (upper picture) and 15 minutes after (bottom picture) administration of gGlu-HMRG. (b,c) Fluorescent images 15 minutes after administration of gGlu-HMRG (left) and H&E staining (middle) of two metastatic lymph nodes. The small yellow circles on the left indicate the ROIs that showed the strongest increase in fluorescent intensity within 5 minutes. The small red boxes in the middle images correspond with the yellow circles on the left. Magnified H&E staining of the regions within the red boxes are shown on the right, and these were diagnosed as cancerous lesions by pathological examination. (d) Time-dependent increases in the fluorescent intensity of each lymph node after administration of gGlu-HMRG.
Figure 3Diagnosis of metastatic lymph nodes using gGlu-HMRG fluorescence.
(a) The increase in fluorescent intensity in metastatic versus non-metastatic lymph nodes. Significant differences in fluorescence were observed. (b) A receiver operating characteristics curve for pathological metastatic diagnostic discrimination using the fluorescent method.
Evaluation of the gGlu-HMRG-based fluorescent method for diagnosis of metastatic lymph nodes in breast cancer.
| Pathological findings | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Metastasis | Non-metastasis | ||
| Fluorescence-positive | 31 | 24 | 55 |
| -negative | 1 | 93 | 94 |
| 32 | 117 | ||
Clinicopathological information of the patients with fluorescence-positive and -negative lymph nodes.
| Factors | Fluorescence-positive (n = 22) | Fluorescence-negative (n = 16) | p value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| number | % | number | % | ||
| Age (mean ± SD*1) | 61 ± 11 | 58 ± 16 | 0.28 | ||
| Histology | |||||
| Invasive ductal carcinoma | 19 | 86 | 8 | 50 | 0.043 |
| Papillo-tubular | 2 | 4 | |||
| Solid-tubular | 7 | 2 | |||
| Scirrhous | 6 | 2 | |||
| Other | 4 | 0 | |||
| DCIS | 2 | 9 | 5 | 31 | |
| Special types | 1 | 5 | 3 | 19 | |
| T | |||||
| Is-1 | 8 | 36 | 11 | 69 | 0.049 |
| 2–4 | 14 | 64 | 5 | 31 | |
| Estrogen receptor | |||||
| Positive | 19 | 86 | 12 | 75 | 0.37 |
| Negative | 3 | 14 | 4 | 25 | |
| Progesterone receptor | |||||
| Positive | 17 | 77 | 12 | 75 | 0.87 |
| Negative | 5 | 23 | 4 | 25 | |
| HER2 receptor | |||||
| Positive | 5 | 25 | 1 | 10 | 0.33 |
| Negative | 15 | 75 | 9 | 90 | |
| Lymphatic invasion | |||||
| 0, 1 | 17 | 85 | 9 | 100 | 0.70 |
| 2, 3 | 3 | 15 | 1 | 0 | |
| Venous invasion | |||||
| 0, 1 | 20 | 100 | 10 | 100 | |
| 2, 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
*Invasive ductal carcinoma vs. DCIS.