| Literature DB >> 31470821 |
Won Hwa Kim1, Hye Jung Kim2, See Hyung Kim3, Jin Hyang Jung4, Ho Yong Park4, Jeeyeon Lee4, Wan Wook Kim4, Ji Young Park5, Yee Soo Chae6, Soo Jung Lee6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We report on our experience of ultrasound (US)-guided dual-localization for axillary nodes before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) with clip and activated charcoal to guide axillary surgery in breast cancer patients.Entities:
Keywords: Axillary nodes; Clipped node; Localization; Neoadjuvant chemotherapy; Sentinel node; Tattooed node
Year: 2019 PMID: 31470821 PMCID: PMC6716853 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-6095-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1Ultrasonographic images at restaging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (a, b) show the most suspicious axillary node, which had a clip (arrow, a) and was localized with activated charcoal (arrow, b). This tattooed node was a non-sentinel node (c) with a clip, identified in specimen mammography (d). Pathological results revealed metastases in both sentinel and tattooed nodes
Clinicopathological features of the patients
| Characteristics | Number of patients |
|---|---|
| Menopausal status | |
| Premenopausal | 20 (71%) |
| Postmenopausal | 8 (29%) |
| Clinical T stage | |
| T1 | 3 (11%) |
| T2 | 19 (68%) |
| T3 | 3 (11%) |
| T4 | 3 (11%) |
| Clinical N stage | |
| N1 | 19 (68%) |
| N2 | 5 (18%) |
| N3 | 4 (14%) |
| Histologic tumor characteristic | |
| Ductal | 26 (93%) |
| Ductal vs. lobular | 2 (7%) |
| Nuclear grade | |
| Low | 0 |
| Moderate | 13 (46%) |
| High | 15 (54%) |
| Histologic gradea | |
| Low | 3 (11%) |
| Intermediate | 11 (39%) |
| High | 6 (21%) |
| Missing | 8 (29%) |
| HR status | |
| Negative | 11 (39%) |
| Positive | 17 (61%) |
| HER2 status | |
| Negative | 20 (71%) |
| Positive | 8 (29%) |
HR hormone receptor, HER2 human epidermal growth factor receptor 2
aModified Scarff–Bloom–Richardson grading system
Inter-nodal relationships according to clinical N stage
| Relationship | All | cN1 | cN2 | cN3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clipped node to tattooed node | .621 | ||||
| Concordance | 79% (22/28) | 79% (15/19) | 60% (3/5) | 100% (4/4) | |
| Discordance | 21% (6/28) | 21% (4/19) | 40% (2/5) | 0% (0/4) | |
| Clipped node to sentinel nodea | .156 | ||||
| Concordance | 63% (15/24) | 68% (13/19) | 50% (2/4) | 0% (0/1) | |
| Discordance | 38% (9/24) | 32% (6/19) | 50% (2/4) | 100% (1/1) | |
| Tattooed node to sentinel nodea | .691 | ||||
| Concordance | 58% (14/24) | 58% (11/19) | 75% (3/4) | 0% (0/1) | |
| Discordance | 42% (10/24) | 42% (8/19) | 25% (1/4) | 100% (1/1) |
aSentinel nodes were narrowly defined as radioactive nodes and/or nodes containing blue dye
Inter-nodal relationships according to the number of retrieved sentinel nodes (SNs)
| Relationship | One SN | Two or more SNs | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clipped node to tattooed node | 1.00 | ||
| Concordance | 73% (8/11) | 77% (10/13) | |
| Discordance | 27% (3/11) | 23% (3/13) | |
| Clipped node to sentinel nodea | .206 | ||
| Concordance | 45% (5/11) | 77% (10/13) | |
| Discordance | 55% (6/11) | 23% (3/13) | |
| Tattooed node to sentinel nodea | .102 | ||
| Concordance | 36% (4/11) | 77% (10/13) | |
| Discordance | 64% (7/11) | 23% (3/13) |
aSentinel nodes were narrowly defined as radioactive nodes and/or nodes containing blue dye
Sensitivities of sentinel, clipped, and tattooed node biopsy
| Sensitivity of Node Biopsy | All | cN1 | cN2 | cN3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sentinela | 73% (11/15) | 100% (10/10) | 33% (1/3) | 0% (0/2) | <.001 |
| Clipped | 67% (10/15) | 80% (8/10) | 67% (2/3) | 0% (0/2) | .042 |
| Tattooed | 67% (10/15) | 80% (8/10) | 67% (2/3) | 0% (0/2) | .042 |
| Sentinel plus Clipped | 80% (12/15) | 100% (10/10) | 67% (2/3) | 0% (0/2) | .001 |
| Sentinel plus Tattooed | 80% (12/15) | 100% (10/10) | 67% (2/3) | 0% (0/2) | .001 |
| Sentinel plus Clipped plus Tattooed | 80% (12/15) | 100% (10/10) | 67% (2/3) | 0% (0/2) | .001 |
aSentinel nodes were narrowly defined as radioactive nodes and/or nodes containing blue dye