Na Lae Eun1, Eun Ju Son1, Hye Mi Gweon1, Jeong-Ah Kim1, Ji Hyun Youk2. 1. Department of Radiology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 211 Eonju-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06273, South Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 211 Eonju-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06273, South Korea. jhyouk@yuhs.ac.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate whether monitoring with ultrasound and MR imaging before, during and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) can predict axillary response in breast cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 131 breast cancer patients with clinically positive axillary lymph node (LN) who underwent NAC and subsequent surgery were enrolled. They had ultrasound and 3.0 T-MR examinations before, during and after NAC. After reviewing ultrasound and MR images, axillary LN features and tumour size (T size) were noted. According to LN status after surgery, imaging features and their diagnostic performances were analysed. RESULTS: Of the 131 patients, 60 (45.8%) had positive LNs after surgery. Pre-NAC T size at ultrasound and MR was different in positive LN status after surgery (p < 0.01). There were significant differences in mid- and post-NAC number, cortical thickness (CxT), T size and T size reduction at ultrasound and mid- and post-NAC CxT, hilum, T size and T size reduction, and post-NAC ratio of diameter at MR (p < 0.03). On multivariate analysis, pre-NAC MR T size (OR, 1.03), mid-NAC ultrasound T size (OR, 1.05) and CxT (OR, 1.53), and post-NAC MR T size (OR, 1.06) and CxT (OR, 1.64) were independently associated with positive LN (p < 0.004). Combined mid-NAC ultrasound T size and CxT showed the best diagnostic performance with AUC of 0.760. CONCLUSION: Monitoring ultrasound and MR axillary LNs and T size can be useful to predict axillary response to NAC in breast cancer patients. KEY POINTS: • Monitoring morphologic features of LNs is useful to predict axillary response. • Monitoring tumour size by imaging is useful to predict axillary response. • The axillary ultrasound during NAC showed the highest diagnostic performance.
PURPOSE: To investigate whether monitoring with ultrasound and MR imaging before, during and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) can predict axillary response in breast cancerpatients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 131 breast cancerpatients with clinically positive axillary lymph node (LN) who underwent NAC and subsequent surgery were enrolled. They had ultrasound and 3.0 T-MR examinations before, during and after NAC. After reviewing ultrasound and MR images, axillary LN features and tumour size (T size) were noted. According to LN status after surgery, imaging features and their diagnostic performances were analysed. RESULTS: Of the 131 patients, 60 (45.8%) had positive LNs after surgery. Pre-NAC T size at ultrasound and MR was different in positive LN status after surgery (p < 0.01). There were significant differences in mid- and post-NAC number, cortical thickness (CxT), T size and T size reduction at ultrasound and mid- and post-NAC CxT, hilum, T size and T size reduction, and post-NAC ratio of diameter at MR (p < 0.03). On multivariate analysis, pre-NAC MR T size (OR, 1.03), mid-NAC ultrasound T size (OR, 1.05) and CxT (OR, 1.53), and post-NAC MR T size (OR, 1.06) and CxT (OR, 1.64) were independently associated with positive LN (p < 0.004). Combined mid-NAC ultrasound T size and CxT showed the best diagnostic performance with AUC of 0.760. CONCLUSION: Monitoring ultrasound and MR axillary LNs and T size can be useful to predict axillary response to NAC in breast cancerpatients. KEY POINTS: • Monitoring morphologic features of LNs is useful to predict axillary response. • Monitoring tumour size by imaging is useful to predict axillary response. • The axillary ultrasound during NAC showed the highest diagnostic performance.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Lymph nodes; Magnetic resonance imaging; Neoadjuvant therapy; Ultrasound
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: Won Hwa Kim; Hye Jung Kim; Ho Yong Park; Ji Young Park; Yee Soo Chae; So Mi Lee; Seung Hyun Cho; Kyung Min Shin; Sang Yub Lee Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2018-12-17 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Rosalind P Candelaria; Roland L Bassett; William Fraser Symmans; Maheshwari Ramineni; Stacy L Moulder; Henry M Kuerer; Alastair M Thompson; Wei Tse Yang Journal: Oncologist Date: 2017-03-17
Authors: Manfred Kaufmann; Gunter von Minckwitz; Elefhterios P Mamounas; David Cameron; Lisa A Carey; Massimo Cristofanilli; Carsten Denkert; Wolfgang Eiermann; Michael Gnant; Jay R Harris; Thomas Karn; Cornelia Liedtke; Davide Mauri; Roman Rouzier; Eugen Ruckhaeberle; Vladimir Semiglazov; W Fraser Symmans; Andrew Tutt; Lajos Pusztai Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-12-23 Impact factor: 5.344
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