Tracy-Ann Moo1, Maxine S Jochelson2, Emily C Zabor3, Michelle Stempel4, Monica Raiss4, Anita Mamtani4, Audree B Tadros4, Mahmoud El-Tamer4, Monica Morrow4. 1. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. moot@mskcc.org. 2. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) endorses sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in patients with clinically positive axillary nodes who downstage after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). In this study, we compared the accuracy of post-NAC MRI to clinical exam alone in predicting pathologic status of sentinel lymph nodes in cN1 patients. METHODS: We identified patients with T0-3, N1 breast cancer who underwent NAC and subsequent SLNB from March 2014 to July 2017. Patients were grouped based on whether a post-NAC MRI was done. MRI accuracy in predicting SLN status was assessed versus clinical exam alone. RESULTS: A total of 450 patients met initial study criteria; 269 were analyzed after excluding patients without biopsy-confirmed nodal disease, palpable disease after NAC, and failed SLN mapping. Median age was 49 years. Post-NAC MRI was done in 68% (182/269). Patients undergoing lumpectomy vs mastectomy more frequently received a post-NAC MRI (88 vs 54%, p < 0.001). All other clinicopathologic parameters were comparable between those who did and did not have a post-NAC MRI. Thirty percent (55/182) had abnormal lymph nodes on MRI. Among these, 58% (32/55) had a positive SLN on final pathology versus 42% (53/127) of patients with no abnormal lymph nodes on MRI and 52% (45/87) of patients who had clinical exam alone (p = 0.09). MRI sensitivity was 38%, specificity was 76%, and overall SLN status prediction accuracy was 58%. CONCLUSIONS: Post-NAC MRI is no more accurate than clinical exam alone in predicting SLN pathology in patients presenting with cN1 disease. Abnormal lymph nodes on MRI should not preclude SLNB.
BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) endorses sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in patients with clinically positive axillary nodes who downstage after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). In this study, we compared the accuracy of post-NAC MRI to clinical exam alone in predicting pathologic status of sentinel lymph nodes in cN1patients. METHODS: We identified patients with T0-3, N1 breast cancer who underwent NAC and subsequent SLNB from March 2014 to July 2017. Patients were grouped based on whether a post-NAC MRI was done. MRI accuracy in predicting SLN status was assessed versus clinical exam alone. RESULTS: A total of 450 patients met initial study criteria; 269 were analyzed after excluding patients without biopsy-confirmed nodal disease, palpable disease after NAC, and failed SLN mapping. Median age was 49 years. Post-NAC MRI was done in 68% (182/269). Patients undergoing lumpectomy vs mastectomy more frequently received a post-NAC MRI (88 vs 54%, p < 0.001). All other clinicopathologic parameters were comparable between those who did and did not have a post-NAC MRI. Thirty percent (55/182) had abnormal lymph nodes on MRI. Among these, 58% (32/55) had a positive SLN on final pathology versus 42% (53/127) of patients with no abnormal lymph nodes on MRI and 52% (45/87) of patients who had clinical exam alone (p = 0.09). MRI sensitivity was 38%, specificity was 76%, and overall SLN status prediction accuracy was 58%. CONCLUSIONS: Post-NAC MRI is no more accurate than clinical exam alone in predicting SLN pathology in patients presenting with cN1 disease. Abnormal lymph nodes on MRI should not preclude SLNB.
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: Anita Mamtani; Andrea V Barrio; Tari A King; Kimberly J Van Zee; George Plitas; Melissa Pilewskie; Mahmoud El-Tamer; Mary L Gemignani; Alexandra S Heerdt; Lisa M Sclafani; Virgilio Sacchini; Hiram S Cody; Sujata Patil; Monica Morrow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Michael L Marinovich; Nehmat Houssami; Petra Macaskill; Francesco Sardanelli; Les Irwig; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Gunter von Minckwitz; Meagan E Brennan; Stefano Ciatto Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jean-Francois Boileau; Brigitte Poirier; Mark Basik; Claire M B Holloway; Louis Gaboury; Lucas Sideris; Sarkis Meterissian; Angel Arnaout; Muriel Brackstone; David R McCready; Stephen E Karp; Isabelle Trop; Andre Lisbona; Frances C Wright; Rami J Younan; Louise Provencher; Erica Patocskai; Atilla Omeroglu; Andre Robidoux Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Anne E Mattingly; Blaise Mooney; Hui-Yi Lin; John V Kiluk; Nazanin Khakpour; Susan J Hoover; Christine Laronga; M Catherine Lee Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2016-11-23 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Tina J Hieken; Judy C Boughey; Katie N Jones; Sejal S Shah; Katrina N Glazebrook Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-07-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: M B I Lobbes; R Prevos; M Smidt; V C G Tjan-Heijnen; M van Goethem; R Schipper; R G Beets-Tan; J E Wildberger Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2013-01-29
Authors: Nicole E Sharp; Darren B Sachs; Nicole M Melchior; Philip Albaneze; Salvatore Nardello; Elin R Sigurdson; Mengying Deng; Allison A Aggon; John M Daly; Richard J Bleicher Journal: Breast J Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Maggie Banys-Paluchowski; Marc Thill; Thorsten Kühn; Nina Ditsch; Jörg Heil; Achim Wöckel; Eva Fallenberg; Michael Friedrich; Sherko Kümmel; Volkmar Müller; Wolfgang Janni; Ute-Susann Albert; Ingo Bauerfeind; Jens-Uwe Blohmer; Wilfried Budach; Peter Dall; Peter Fasching; Tanja Fehm; Oleg Gluz; Nadia Harbeck; Jens Huober; Christian Jackisch; Cornelia Kolberg-Liedtke; Hans H Kreipe; David Krug; Sibylle Loibl; Diana Lüftner; Michael Patrick Lux; Nicolai Maass; Christoph Mundhenke; Ulrike Nitz; Tjoung Won Park-Simon; Toralf Reimer; Kerstin Rhiem; Achim Rody; Marcus Schmidt; Andreas Schneeweiss; Florian Schütz; H Peter Sinn; Christine Solbach; Erich-Franz Solomayer; Elmar Stickeler; Christoph Thomssen; Michael Untch; Isabell Witzel; Bernd Gerber Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2022-09-30 Impact factor: 2.754