Rosalind P Candelaria1, Beatriz E Adrada2, Kenneth Hess3, Lumarie Santiago4, Deanna L Lane5, Alastair M Thompson6, Stacy L Moulder7, Monica L Huang8, Elsa M Arribas9, Gaiane M Rauch10, Jessica W T Leung11, W Fraser Symmans12, Vicente Valero13, Elizabeth E Ravenberg14, Jason B White15, Wei Tse Yang16. 1. Breast Imaging Department, Unit 1350, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: rcandelaria@mdanderson.org. 2. Breast Imaging Department, Unit 1350, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: beatriz.adrada@mdanderson.org. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Unit 1411, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA. 4. Breast Imaging Department, Unit 1350, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: lumarie.santiago@mdanderson.org. 5. Breast Imaging Department, Unit 1350, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: Deanna.Lane@mdanderson.org. 6. Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, Unit 1434, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: AThompson1@mdanderson.org. 7. Department of Breast Medical Oncology, Unit 1354, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: smoulder@mdanderson.org. 8. Breast Imaging Department, Unit 1350, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: mlhuang@mdanderson.org. 9. Breast Imaging Department, Unit 1350, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: earribas@mdanderson.org. 10. Breast Imaging Department, Unit 1350, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: gmrauch@mdanderson.org. 11. Breast Imaging Department, Unit 1350, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: JWLeung@mdanderson.org. 12. Department of Pathology, Unit 085, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: fsymmans@mdanderson.org. 13. Department of Breast Medical Oncology, Unit 1354, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: vvalero@mdanderson.org. 14. Department of Breast Medical Oncology, Unit 1354, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: EEvans1@mdanderson.org. 15. Department of Breast Medical Oncology, Unit 1354, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: JBWhite@mdanderson.org. 16. Breast Imaging Department, Unit 1350, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: wyang@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the value of performing mid-treatment axillary ultrasound (AUS) in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients who are undergoing neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) by determining the optimal cutoff number of abnormal nodes associated with residual nodal disease on surgical pathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This sub-study, an interim analysis of an ongoing single-institution clinical trial enrolling patients with stage I-III TNBC, included 106 patients. Number of abnormal nodes at mid-treatment was assessed and recorded by experienced breast radiologists, who empirically categorized lymph nodes using a binary approach of sonographically-normal versus abnormal. Pathologic lymph node positivity was defined as presence of macrometastasis or micrometastasis in ≥1 axillary node from sentinel lymph node biopsy and/or axillary lymph node dissection. RESULTS: Of 106 patients, 26 (25 %) had residual nodal disease and 80 (75 %) had no nodal disease at surgery. Median number of abnormal nodes at mid-treatment was 5 (standard deviation [SD], 5) for patients with residual nodal disease and 0 (SD, 2) for patients with no nodal disease at surgery (p < 0.0001). TNBC patients with >4 abnormal nodes at mid-treatment had a significantly higher chance of being node-positive at surgery (AUC = 0.908, p < 0.0001; PPV = 90 %). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that a cutoff of >4 abnormal nodes on mid-treatment AUS is associated with residual disease post-NAST. If our findings are substantiated by subsequent analyses, then mid-treatment AUS could be used to identify patients unlikely to achieve nodal pathologic complete response and who should be offered alternative therapy.
PURPOSE: To investigate the value of performing mid-treatment axillary ultrasound (AUS) in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients who are undergoing neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) by determining the optimal cutoff number of abnormal nodes associated with residual nodal disease on surgical pathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This sub-study, an interim analysis of an ongoing single-institution clinical trial enrolling patients with stage I-III TNBC, included 106 patients. Number of abnormal nodes at mid-treatment was assessed and recorded by experienced breast radiologists, who empirically categorized lymph nodes using a binary approach of sonographically-normal versus abnormal. Pathologic lymph node positivity was defined as presence of macrometastasis or micrometastasis in ≥1 axillary node from sentinel lymph node biopsy and/or axillary lymph node dissection. RESULTS: Of 106 patients, 26 (25 %) had residual nodal disease and 80 (75 %) had no nodal disease at surgery. Median number of abnormal nodes at mid-treatment was 5 (standard deviation [SD], 5) for patients with residual nodal disease and 0 (SD, 2) for patients with no nodal disease at surgery (p < 0.0001). TNBC patients with >4 abnormal nodes at mid-treatment had a significantly higher chance of being node-positive at surgery (AUC = 0.908, p < 0.0001; PPV = 90 %). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that a cutoff of >4 abnormal nodes on mid-treatment AUS is associated with residual disease post-NAST. If our findings are substantiated by subsequent analyses, then mid-treatment AUS could be used to identify patients unlikely to achieve nodal pathologic complete response and who should be offered alternative therapy.
Authors: Deepak G Bedi; Rajesh Krishnamurthy; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Beth S Edeiken; Huong Le-Petross; Bruno D Fornage; Roland L Bassett; Kelly K Hunt Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Hiroyuki Abe; David Schacht; Charlene A Sennett; Gillian M Newstead; Robert A Schmidt Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: T J A van Nijnatten; E H Ploumen; R J Schipper; B Goorts; E H Andriessen; S Vanwetswinkel; M Schavemaker; P Nelemans; B de Vries; R G H Beets-Tan; M L Smidt; M B I Lobbes Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Alison U Barron; Tanya L Hoskin; Courtney N Day; E Shelley Hwang; Henry M Kuerer; Judy C Boughey Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: T P J Farrell; N C Adams; M Stenson; P A Carroll; M Griffin; E M Connolly; S A O'Keeffe Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Tina J Hieken; Brent C Trull; Judy C Boughey; Katie N Jones; Carol A Reynolds; Sejal S Shah; Katrina N Glazebrook Journal: Surgery Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: H M Kuerer; A A Sahin; K K Hunt; L A Newman; T M Breslin; F C Ames; M I Ross; A U Buzdar; G N Hortobagyi; S E Singletary Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: S Samiei; T J A van Nijnatten; H C van Beek; M P J Polak; A J G Maaskant-Braat; E M Heuts; S M J van Kuijk; R J Schipper; M B I Lobbes; M L Smidt Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 4.379