| Literature DB >> 33194714 |
Yanwen Luo1, Chenyang Zhao1, Yuanjing Gao1, Mengsu Xiao1, Wenbo Li1, Jing Zhang1, Li Ma1, Jing Qin1, Yuxin Jiang1, Qingli Zhu1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a nomogram for predicting axillary lymph node (ALN) metastases using the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) ultrasound lexicon.Entities:
Keywords: axillary lymph node metastasis; breast cancer; nomogram; prediction model; ultrasound
Year: 2020 PMID: 33194714 PMCID: PMC7653095 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.581321
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Extracted US features.
| Feature | Number | Description | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shape | regular | 1 | A mass that is oval (egg-shaped or elliptical) or round (spherical, ball-shaped). |
| irregular | 2 | Neither oval nor round. | |
| Orientation | horizontal | 1 | The long axis of the lesion is parallel to the skin line (“wider-than-tall”). |
| vertical | 2 | The anterior-posterior or vertical dimension is greater than the transverse or horizontal dimension (“taller-than-wide”). | |
| Margin | circumscribed | 1 | The demarcation is well defined and clear, with abrupt transition between the lesion and the surrounding tissue. |
| not circumscribed | 2 | The boundary is poorly defined, and can be characterized as indistinct, angular, microlobulated, or spiculated. | |
| Lesion boundary | abrupt interface | 1 | The demarcation between the lesion and the surrounding tissue is imperceptible or is a distinct well-defined echogenic rim without any thickness. |
| echogenic halo | 2 | A band bridged by an echogenic transition zone can be perceived. | |
| Echo pattern | hypoechoic | 1 | The mass has decreased echogenicity compared with fat. |
| complex | 2 | A complex mass containing both anechoic (cystic) and echogenic | |
| Posterior acoustic features | no | 1 | No shadowing or enhancement is present deep in the mass; the echogenicity of the area immediately behind the mass is not different from that of the adjacent tissue at the same depth. |
| enhancement | 2 | Sound transmission is unimpeded in its passage through the mass. Enhancement appears as a more echogenic (whiter) column deep into the mass. Enhancement is a criterion for cyst diagnosis. | |
| shadowing | 3 | Shadowing, i.e., posterior attenuation of acoustic transmission. | |
| Calcification | no | 1 | No calcification. |
| macrocalcification | 2 | Macrocalcifications: coarse calcifications 0.5 mm or | |
| microcalcification | 3 | Microcalcifications embedded in the mass are well depicted. The punctate, hyperechoic foci appear conspicuous in a hypoechoic mass. | |
| Vascularity | no | 1 | Little or No vascularity. |
| adjacent | 2 | present immediately adjacent to lesion | |
| diffusely increased | 3 | Diffusely increased vascularity surrounding lesion. |
Baseline characteristics in the primary and external validation cohorts.
| Variable | Primary cohort | External validation cohort | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative for LN metastasis (n = 536) | Positive for LN metastasis(n = 167) | P-value | Negative for LN metastasis (n = 58) | Positive for LN metastasis (n = 51) | P-value | |
| Age | 51.3 ± 11.6 | 50.6 ± 11.4 | 0.517 | 51.6 ± 11.5 | 55.4 ± 11.6 | 0.088 |
| Size | 2.1 ± 0.9 | 2.7 ± 1.0 | <0.001 | 1.7 ± 0.8 | 2.5 ± 1.1 | <0.001 |
| Shape | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||
| regular | 206 (38.4%) | 35 (21.0%) | 46 (79.3%) | 4 (7.8%) | ||
| irregular | 330 (61.6%) | 132 (79.0%) | 12 (20.7%) | 47 (92.2%) | ||
| Orientation | 0.342 | 0.002 | ||||
| horizontal | 327 (61.0%) | 95 (56.9%) | 43 (74.1%) | 23 (45.1%) | ||
| vertical | 209 (39.0%) | 72 (43.1%) | 15 (25.9%) | 28 (54.9%) | ||
| Margin | 0.004 | <0.001 | ||||
| circumscribed | 82 (15.3%) | 11 (6.6%) | 58 (100.0%) | 1 (2.0%) | ||
| not circumscribed | 454 (84.7%) | 156 (93.4%) | 0 (0.0%) | 50 (98.0%) | ||
| Lesion boundary | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||
| abrupt interface | 327 (61.0%) | 40 (24.0%) | 55 (94.8%) | 12 (23.5%) | ||
| echogenic halo | 209 (39.0%) | 127 (76.0%) | 3 (5.2%) | 39 (76.5%) | ||
| Echo pattern | 0.333 | 0.056 | ||||
| hypoechoic | 524 (97.8%) | 161 (96.4%) | 54 (93.1%) | 51 (100.0%) | ||
| complex | 12 (2.2%) | 6 (3.6%) | 4 (6.9%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
| Posterior acoustic features | 0.054 | <0.001 | ||||
| no | 396 (73.9%) | 109 (65.3%) | 39 (67.2%) | 24 (47.1%) | ||
| enhance | 69 (12.9%) | 24 (14.4%) | 18 (31.0%) | 11 (21.6%) | ||
| decrease | 71 (13.2%) | 34 (20.4%) | 1 (1.7%) | 16 (31.4%) | ||
| Calcification | 0.531 | 0.556 | ||||
| no | 375 (70.0%) | 110 (65.9%) | 47 (81.0%) | 37 (72.5%) | ||
| macro | 6 (1.1%) | 3 (1.8%) | 2 (3.4%) | 2 (3.9%) | ||
| micro | 6 (1.1%) | 54 (32.3%) | 9 (15.5%) | 12 (23.5%) | ||
| Vascularity | 0.050 | 0.068 | ||||
| no | 210 (39.2%) | 48 (28.7%) | 21 (36.2%) | 13 (25.5%) | ||
| minimal | 202 (37.7%) | 73 (43.7%) | 18 (31.0%) | 27 (52.9%) | ||
| abundant | 124 (23.1%) | 46 (27.5%) | 19 (32.8%) | 11 (21.6%) | ||
| Histological type | 0.163 | 0.471 | ||||
| invasive ductal carcinoma | 396(73.9%) | 135(80.8%) | 42 (72.4%) | 41 (80.4%) | ||
| invasive lobular carcinoma | 23(4.3%) | 7(4.2%) | 9 (15.5%) | 5(9.8%) | ||
| ductal carcinoma in situ | 101(18.8%) | 19(11.4%) | 4 (6.9%) | 2 (3.9%) | ||
| Others | 16(3.0%) | 6(3.6%) | 3 (5.2%) | 3 (5.9%) | ||
| pN status | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||
| pN0 | 536(100%) | 0(0.0%) | 58(100%) | (0.0%) | ||
| pN1 | 0(0.0%) | 98(58.7%) | (0.0%) | 51(100%) | ||
| pN2 | 0(0.0%) | 29(17.4%) | (0.0%) | (0.0%) | ||
| pN3 | 0(0.0%) | 40(23.9%) | (0.0%) | (0.0%) | ||
Results of Univariate and Multivariate logistic regression analysis in the primary cohort.
| Exposure | Univariate analyses | Final multivariate model |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 1.0 (1.0, 1.0) 0.734 | |
| Size | 1.7 (1.4, 2.1) < 0.001 | 1.7 (1.4, 2.0) < 0.001 |
| Shape | ||
| regular | 1.0 | |
| irregular | 2.1 (1.3, 3.4) 0.002 | |
| Orientation | ||
| horizontal | 1.0 | |
| vertical | 1.2 (0.8, 1.7) 0.501 | |
| Margin | ||
| circumscribed | 1.0 | |
| not circumscribed | 1.6 (0.8, 3.2) 0.169 | |
| Lesion boundary | ||
| abrupt interface | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| echogenic halo | 3.7 (2.4, 5.8) < 0.001 | 4.5 (3.0, 6.7) < 0.001 |
| Echo pattern | ||
| hypoechoic | 1.0 | |
| complex | 1.5 (0.5, 4.5) 0.434 | |
| Posterior acoustic features | ||
| no | 1.0 | |
| enhance | 1.1 (0.6, 2.1) 0.651 | |
| decrease | 1.4 (0.8, 2.4) 0.249 | |
| Calcification | ||
| no | 1.0 | |
| macro | 2.2 (0.5, 9.5) 0.285 | |
| micro | 1.3 (0.8, 2.0) 0.250 | |
| Vascularity | ||
| no | 1.0 | |
| minimal | 1.4 (0.9, 2.3) 0.141 | |
| abundant | 1.6 (0.9, 2.7) 0.105 |
Figure 1The nomogram was developed in the primary dataset. it included two factors (size, lesion boundary). The nomogram plot provides a visual way to predict the risk of LN metastases for breast cancer patients.
Diagnostic performance of the nomogram.
| Diagnostic performance | P set | EV Set |
|---|---|---|
| AUC | 0.7468 | 0.9065 |
| Specificity | 0.6124 | 0.8966 |
| Sensitivity | 0.7711 | 0.8824 |
| Accuracy | 0.6500 | 0.8899 |
| Positive likelihood ratio | 1.9892 | 8.5294 |
| Negative likelihood ratio | 0.3738 | 0.1312 |
| Positive predictive value | 0.3821 | 0.8824 |
| Negative predictive value | 0.8959 | 0.8966 |
P, Primary dataset; EV, External validation dataset.
Figure 2The ROC curves of the prediction model in the primary dataset.
Figure 3The calibration curves of the nomogram in the primary cohort.
Figure 4The ROC curve of the prediction model in the N1 patients of the external validation cohort.