Abigail S Caudle1, Henry M Kuerer1, Savitri Krishnamurthy2, Kyungmin Shin3, Brian P Hobbs4, Junsheng Ma5, Elizabeth A Mittendorf6,7, Ashley C Washington1, Sarah M DeSnyder1, Dalliah M Black1, Kelly K Hunt1, Wei T Yang3. 1. Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 2. Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 3. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 4. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio. 5. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 6. Department of Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 7. Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clips are often placed to mark axillary nodes with biopsy-confirmed metastases in patients with breast cancer. The evaluation of clipped nodes after chemotherapy can identify patients who have eradication of nodal disease. The goal of this study was to determine whether preoperative fine-needle aspiration (FNA) of clipped nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) could predict the presence of residual disease. METHODS: This prospective registry study enrolled 50 patients with a clip placed to mark nodes with biopsy-confirmed metastases who had completed NAC. Participants underwent FNA of the clipped node before seed-localized lymph node excision. FNA pathology was compared with surgical pathology. RESULTS: There were 36 patients (72%) with residual disease on surgical pathology: 3 (8%) had a nondiagnostic aspirate, carcinoma was seen in 14 (39%), and 19 (53%) had a false-negative result. The sensitivity of FNA was 42.4%, its specificity was 100%, and its negative predictive value was 40.6%. In a univariate analysis, the odds of a true-positive result increased significantly with the mean initial size of the clipped node (odds ratio [OR], 4.3; P = .004) and the size of the metastatic focus after NAC (OR, 1.3; P = 0.003), whereas normalization of nodes after chemotherapy (OR, 0.1) and a lack of response on ultrasound (OR, 0.11) were associated with a false-negative result (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: FNA of marked nodes after chemotherapy has a high false-negative rate. This highlights the need for surgical staging of the axilla after NAC to assess the response.
BACKGROUND: Clips are often placed to mark axillary nodes with biopsy-confirmed metastases in patients with breast cancer. The evaluation of clipped nodes after chemotherapy can identify patients who have eradication of nodal disease. The goal of this study was to determine whether preoperative fine-needle aspiration (FNA) of clipped nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) could predict the presence of residual disease. METHODS: This prospective registry study enrolled 50 patients with a clip placed to mark nodes with biopsy-confirmed metastases who had completed NAC. Participants underwent FNA of the clipped node before seed-localized lymph node excision. FNA pathology was compared with surgical pathology. RESULTS: There were 36 patients (72%) with residual disease on surgical pathology: 3 (8%) had a nondiagnostic aspirate, carcinoma was seen in 14 (39%), and 19 (53%) had a false-negative result. The sensitivity of FNA was 42.4%, its specificity was 100%, and its negative predictive value was 40.6%. In a univariate analysis, the odds of a true-positive result increased significantly with the mean initial size of the clipped node (odds ratio [OR], 4.3; P = .004) and the size of the metastatic focus after NAC (OR, 1.3; P = 0.003), whereas normalization of nodes after chemotherapy (OR, 0.1) and a lack of response on ultrasound (OR, 0.11) were associated with a false-negative result (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: FNA of marked nodes after chemotherapy has a high false-negative rate. This highlights the need for surgical staging of the axilla after NAC to assess the response.
Authors: Judy C Boughey; Karla V Ballman; Kelly K Hunt; Linda M McCall; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Gretchen M Ahrendt; Lee G Wilke; Huong T Le-Petross Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kiran K Turaga; Alec Chau; Jennifer M Eatrides; John V Kiluk; Nazanin Khakpour; Christine Laronga; M Catherine Lee Journal: Oncologist Date: 2011-05-14
Authors: Thiemo J A van Nijnatten; Janine M Simons; Marjolein L Smidt; Carmen C van der Pol; Paul J van Diest; Agnes Jager; David van Klaveren; Boen L R Kam; Marc B I Lobbes; Maaike de Boer; Kees Verhoef; Linetta B Koppert; Ernest J T Luiten Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Abigail S Caudle; Wei T Yang; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Daliah M Black; Rosa Hwang; Brian Hobbs; Kelly K Hunt; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Henry M Kuerer Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Judy C Boughey; James P Moriarty; Amy C Degnim; Melissa S Gregg; Jason S Egginton; Kirsten Hall Long Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-02-02 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Hiroyuki Abe; Robert A Schmidt; Kirti Kulkarni; Charlene A Sennett; Jeffrey S Mueller; Gillian M Newstead Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-10-27 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: Abigail S Caudle; Wei T Yang; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Dalliah M Black; Michael Z Gilcrease; Isabelle Bedrosian; Brian P Hobbs; Sarah M DeSnyder; Rosa F Hwang; Beatriz E Adrada; Simona F Shaitelman; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Benjamin D Smith; Rosalind P Candelaria; Gildy V Babiera; Basak E Dogan; Lumarie Santiago; Kelly K Hunt; Henry M Kuerer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 44.544