| Literature DB >> 31696293 |
Soong June Bae1, Ji Hyun Youk2, Chang Ik Yoon3, Soeun Park1, Chi Hwan Cha1, Hak Woo Lee1, Sung Gwe Ahn1, Seung Ah Lee4, Eun Ju Son2, Joon Jeong5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a nomogram and validate its use for the intraoperative evaluation of nodal metastasis using shear-wave elastography (SWE) elasticity values and nodal sizeEntities:
Keywords: Breast neoplasm; Elasticity imaging techniques; Lymphatic metastasis; Nomogram
Year: 2019 PMID: 31696293 PMCID: PMC6957551 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06473-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Radiol ISSN: 0938-7994 Impact factor: 5.315
Fig. 1B-Mode ultrasound and shear-wave elastography (SWE). a B-Mode ultrasound showed 0.73-cm–sized excised sentinel lymph node with adjacent fat tissue. b The mean stiffness was measured by placing the 2-mm–sized region-of-interest (ROI) on the stiffest part of the excised sentinel lymph node (circle). The stiffness of the adjacent fat tissue was measured by placing another ROI on the surrounding fat tissue (dotted circle). Then, the elasticity ratio was calculated automatically. a–d B-Mode ultrasound and shear-wave elastography (SWE) images of patients with lymph node metastasis. e, f B-Mode ultrasound and shear-wave elastography (SWE) images of patient without lymph node metastasis
Fig. 2Constructed nomogram. a Constructed nomogram based on the predictive factors of axillary LN metastasis, such as nodal size, mean stiffness, and elasticity ratio. b Example of constructed nomogram. LN, lymph node
Fig. 3ROC curve of the nomogram and the calibration plot. a ROC curve of the nomogram; b the calibration plot in the development cohort with internal validation; c ROC curve of the nomogram; d the calibration plot in the validation cohort with external validation. ROC, receiver operating characteristic
Clinicopathologic characteristics of the validation cohort according to LN metastasis
| Variables | Patients with non-malignant sentinel LN ( | Patients with malignant sentinel LN ( | All patients | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median age (years) | 55.5 (35–76) | 54 (22–75) | 55 (22–76) | 0.716 |
| Tumor size (cm) | 1.61 ± 1.07 | 2.35 ± 1.14 | 1.68 ± 1.06 | 0.045 |
| T stage | 0.520† | |||
| T1mi | 2 (2.9%) | 0 | 2 (2.5%) | |
| T1 | 47 (67.1%) | 5 (50.0%) | 52 (65.0%) | |
| T2 | 20 (28.6%) | 5 (50.0%) | 25 (31.3%) | |
| T3 | 1 (1.4%) | 0 | 1 (1.2%) | |
| HG | 0.312† | |||
| Grade I | 18 (25.7%) | 1 (10.0%) | 19 (23.8%) | |
| Grade II | 38 (54.3%) | 5 (50.0%) | 43 (53.8%) | |
| Grade III | 14 (20.0%) | 4 (40.0%) | 18 (22.5%) | |
| ER | 0.662† | |||
| Positive | 59 (84.3%) | 8 (80.0%) | 67 (83.8%) | |
| Negative | 11 (15.7%) | 2 (20.0%) | 13 (16.2%) | |
| PR | 0.715† | |||
| Positive | 48 (68.6%) | 8 (80.0%) | 56 (70.0%) | |
| Negative | 22 (31.4%) | 2 (20.0%) | 24 (30.0%) | |
| HER2 | 0.086† | |||
| Positive | 11 (15.7%) | 4 (40%) | 15 (18.8%) | |
| Negative | 59 (84.3%) | 6 (60%) | 65 (81.3%) |
LN, lymph node; HG, histologic grade; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2
†Fisher’s exact test
Comparison of the clinicopathologic characteristics between the development and validation cohorts
| Characteristics | Development cohort ( | Validation cohort ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Median age, years (range) | 49 (31–69) | 55 (22–76) | 0.009* |
| Tumor size, cm (range) | 1.75 (0.10–3.60) | 1.70 (0.1–6.20) | 0.766 |
| T stage | 0.382† | ||
| Tis | 2 (3.6%) | 0 | |
| T1mi | 2 (3.6%) | 2 (2.5%) | |
| T1 | 31 (56.4%) | 52 (65.0%) | |
| T2 | 20 (36.4%) | 25 (31.3%) | |
| T3 | 0 | 1 (1.3%) | |
| N stage | < 0.001† | ||
| 0 | 28 (51.0%) | 70 (87.5%) | |
| N1 | 19 (34.5%) | 10 (12.5%) | |
| N2 | 6 (11.0%) | 0 | |
| N3 | 2 (3.5%) | 0 | |
| HGa | 0.096 | ||
| Grade I | 7 (12.7%) | 19 (23.8%) | |
| Grade II | 25 (45.5%) | 43 (53.8%) | |
| Grade III | 20 (36.4%) | 18 (22.5%) | |
| ER | 0.074 | ||
| Positive | 39 (70.9%) | 67 (83.8%) | |
| Negative | 16 (29.1%) | 13 (16.2%) | |
| PR | 0.157 | ||
| Positive | 32 (58.2%) | 56 (70.0%) | |
| Negative | 23 (41.8%) | 24 (30.0%) | |
| HER2 | 0.012 | ||
| Positive | 21 (38.2%) | 15 (18.8%) | |
| Negative | 34 (61.8%) | 65 (81.3%) |
HG, histologic grade; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2
*Mann-Whitney test
†Fisher’s exact test
aMissing data
Ultrasound features and elasticity values measured using intraoperative ex vivo shear-wave elastography and total points in the nomogram between the non-metastatic and metastatic axillary LNs
| Total | Non-metastatic sentinel LNs | Metastatic sentinel LNs | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nodal size (mm) | 7.31 ± 3.63 | 7.20 ± 3.62 | 8.70 ± 3.60 | 0.123 |
| Mean stiffness (kPa) | 11.32 ± 7.2 | 10.41 ± 5.24 | 23.54 ± 15.28 | 0.005 |
| Elasticity ratio | 1.61 ± 1.12 | 1.49 ± 0.77 | 3.24 ± 2.76 | 0.028 |
| Total points in nomogram | 9.08 (95% CI, 7.54–10.62) | 7.67 (95% CI, 6.69–8.64) | 28.06 (95% CI, 11.29–44.83) | < 0.001* |
LN, lymph node
*Mann-Whitney test
Fig. 4Ultrasound feature and elasticity values between non-metastatic and metastatic lymph nodes. Box plot of the (a) nodal size, (b) mean stiffness, and (c) elasticity ratio between the non-metastatic and metastatic lymph nodes
Ultrasound features and elasticity values measured using intraoperative ex vivo shear-wave elastography according to histological types of breast cancer
| Histologic type | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IDC ( | ILC ( | Others* ( | ||
| Nodal size (mm) | 7.13 ± 3.35 | 7.43 ± 4.99 | 8.45 ± 4.61 | 0.225 |
| Mean stiffness (kPa) | 11.53 ± 7.56 | 8.44 ± 2.67 | 11.15 ± 5.82 | 0.353 |
| Elasticity ratio | 1.60 ± 1.18 | 1.66 ± 0.64 | 1.66 ± 0.75 | 0.960 |
IDC, invasive ductal carcinoma; ILC, invasive lobular carcinoma
*Others; medullary carcinoma (n = 3), mucinous carcinoma (n = 11), tubular carcinoma (n = 4), cribriform carcinoma (n = 5), apocrine carcinoma (n = 3)