Huong T Le-Petross1, Linda M McCall2, Kelly K Hunt3, Elizabeth A Mittendorf3, Gretchen M Ahrendt4, Lee G Wilke5, Karla V Ballman6, Judy C Boughey7. 1. 1 Department of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1155 Pressler St, Houston, TX 77030. 2. 2 Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Duke University, Durham, NC. 3. 3 Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 4. 4 Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Magee-Womens Hospital of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA. 5. 5 Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, Breast Center, Madison, WI. 6. 6 Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY. 7. 7 Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine lymph node features on axillary ultrasound (US) images obtained after neoadjuvant chemotherapy that are associated with residual nodal disease in patients with initial biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: All patients had axillary US performed after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Axillary US images were centrally reviewed for lymph node size, cortical thickness, and cortical morphologic findings (type I indicated no visible cortex; type II, a hypoechoic cortex ≤ 3 mm; type III, a hypoechoic cortex > 3 mm; type IV, a generalized lobulated hypoechoic cortex; type V, focal hypoechoic cortical lobulation; and type VI, a totally hypoechoic node with no hilum). Lymph node characteristics were compared with final surgical pathologic findings. RESULTS: Axillary US images obtained after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgical pathologic findings were available for 611 patients. Residual nodal disease was present in 373 patients (61.0%), and 238 (39.0%) had a complete nodal pathologic response. Increased cortical thickness (mean, 3.5 mm for node-positive disease vs 2.5 mm for node-negative disease) was associated with residual nodal disease. Lymph node short-axis and long-axis diameters were significantly associated with pathologic findings. Patients with nodal morphologic type I or II had the lowest rate of residual nodal disease (51 of 91 patients [56.0%] and 138 of 246 patients (56.1%), respectively), whereas those with nodal morphologic type VI had the highest rate (44 of 55 patients [80.0%]) (p = 0.004). The presence of fatty hilum was significantly associated with node-negative disease (p = 0.0013). CONCLUSION: Axillary US performed after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is useful for nodal response assessment, with longer short-axis diameter, longer long-axis diameter, increased cortical thickness, and absence of fatty hilum significantly associated with residual nodal disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine lymph node features on axillary ultrasound (US) images obtained after neoadjuvant chemotherapy that are associated with residual nodal disease in patients with initial biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: All patients had axillary US performed after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Axillary US images were centrally reviewed for lymph node size, cortical thickness, and cortical morphologic findings (type I indicated no visible cortex; type II, a hypoechoic cortex ≤ 3 mm; type III, a hypoechoic cortex > 3 mm; type IV, a generalized lobulated hypoechoic cortex; type V, focal hypoechoic cortical lobulation; and type VI, a totally hypoechoic node with no hilum). Lymph node characteristics were compared with final surgical pathologic findings. RESULTS: Axillary US images obtained after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgical pathologic findings were available for 611 patients. Residual nodal disease was present in 373 patients (61.0%), and 238 (39.0%) had a complete nodal pathologic response. Increased cortical thickness (mean, 3.5 mm for node-positive disease vs 2.5 mm for node-negative disease) was associated with residual nodal disease. Lymph node short-axis and long-axis diameters were significantly associated with pathologic findings. Patients with nodal morphologic type I or II had the lowest rate of residual nodal disease (51 of 91 patients [56.0%] and 138 of 246 patients (56.1%), respectively), whereas those with nodal morphologic type VI had the highest rate (44 of 55 patients [80.0%]) (p = 0.004). The presence of fatty hilum was significantly associated with node-negative disease (p = 0.0013). CONCLUSION: Axillary US performed after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is useful for nodal response assessment, with longer short-axis diameter, longer long-axis diameter, increased cortical thickness, and absence of fatty hilum significantly associated with residual nodal disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Authors: Savitri Krishnamurthy; Nour Sneige; Deepak G Bedi; Beth S Edieken; Bruno D Fornage; Henry M Kuerer; S Eva Singletary; Kelly K Hunt Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-09-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Suzanne C E Diepstraten; Ali R Sever; Constantinus F M Buckens; Wouter B Veldhuis; Thijs van Dalen; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Willem P Th M Mali; Helena M Verkooijen Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-09-06 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: M R Boland; R S Prichard; I Daskalova; A J Lowery; D Evoy; J Geraghty; J Rothwell; C M Quinn; A O'Doherty; E W McDermott Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2015-01-24 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Tina J Hieken; Brent C Trull; Judy C Boughey; Katie N Jones; Carol A Reynolds; Sejal S Shah; Katrina N Glazebrook Journal: Surgery Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: H M Kuerer; A A Sahin; K K Hunt; L A Newman; T M Breslin; F C Ames; M I Ross; A U Buzdar; G N Hortobagyi; S E Singletary Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Susan L Koelliker; Maureen A Chung; Martha B Mainiero; Margaret M Steinhoff; Blake Cady Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-11-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Judy C Boughey; Vera J Suman; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Gretchen M Ahrendt; Lee G Wilke; Bret Taback; A Marilyn Leitch; Henry M Kuerer; Monet Bowling; Teresa S Flippo-Morton; David R Byrd; David W Ollila; Thomas B Julian; Sarah A McLaughlin; Linda McCall; W Fraser Symmans; Huong T Le-Petross; Bruce G Haffty; Thomas A Buchholz; Heidi Nelson; Kelly K Hunt Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: B Fisher; C Redmond; E R Fisher; M Bauer; N Wolmark; D L Wickerham; M Deutsch; E Montague; R Margolese; R Foster Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1985-03-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kubilay Ertan; Christina Linsler; Alexander di Liberto; Mei Fang Ong; Erich Solomayer; Jan Endrikat Journal: Breast Cancer (Auckl) Date: 2013-03-06
Authors: Won Hwa Kim; Hye Jung Kim; So Mi Lee; Seung Hyun Cho; Kyung Min Shin; Sang Yub Lee; Jae Kwang Lim; Won Kee Lee Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Jane M Armer; Karla V Ballman; Linda McCall; Pamela L Ostby; Eris Zagar; Henry M Kuerer; Kelly K Hunt; Judy C Boughey Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 14.766
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