| Literature DB >> 33981613 |
Xi'E Hu1, Jingyi Xue2, Shujia Peng1, Ping Yang1, Zhenyu Yang1, Lin Yang1, Yanming Dong1, Lijuan Yuan1, Ting Wang3, Guoqiang Bao1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy is feasible for breast cancer (BC) patients with clinically negative axillary lymph nodes; however, complications develop in some patients after surgery, although SLN metastasis is rarely found. Previous predictive models contained parameters that relied on postoperative data, thus limiting their application in the preoperative setting. Therefore, it is necessary to find a new model for preoperative risk prediction for SLN metastasis to help clinicians facilitate individualized clinical decisions.Entities:
Keywords: SLN; breast cancer; external validation; metastasis; nomogram; ultrasound
Year: 2021 PMID: 33981613 PMCID: PMC8107679 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.665240
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1Study population enrolment in the training and validation cohort. (A) Study population enrolment in the training cohort; (B) Study population enrolment in the validation cohort. SLNB, sentinel lymph node biopsy; BC, breast cancer; pN(-), negative lymph node metastasis confirmed by pathology; pN(+), positive lymph node metastasis confirmed by pathology.
Participant baseline characteristics in two cohorts.
| Characteristics | Training data (n=444) (%) | Validation data (n=180) (%) | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 49.0 (44.0, 58.5) | 49.5 (44.0, 58.5) | 0.90 |
|
| 23.3 (21.6, 24.8) | 23.4 (21.5, 25.4) | 0.06 |
|
| 0.13 | ||
| Pre- | 237 (53.4) | 84 (46.7) | |
| Post- | 207 (46.6) | 96 (53.3) | |
|
| 0.89 | ||
| OUQ | 255 (57.4) | 109 (60.6) | |
| OLQ | 69 (15.5) | 26 (14.4) | |
| IUQ | 83 (18.7) | 29 (16.1) | |
| ILQ | 26 (5.9) | 10 (5.6) | |
| Center | 11 (2.5) | 6 (3.3) | |
|
|
| ||
| Tis | 67 (15.1) | 1 (0.6) | |
| T1 | 277 (62.4) | 59 (32.8) | |
| T2 | 100 (22.5) | 118 (65.6) | |
| T3 | 0 (0.0) | 2 (1.1) | |
|
| 0.21 | ||
| N0 | 344 (77.5) | 136 (75.6) | |
| N1 | 97 (21.8) | 39 (21.7) | |
| N2 | 2 (0.5) | 3 (1.7) | |
| N3 | 1 (0.2) | 2 (1.1) | |
|
|
| ||
| Ia | 246 (55.4) | 48 (26.7) | |
| Ib | 68 (15.3) | 11 (6.1) | |
| IIa | 71 (16.0) | 86 (47.8) | |
| IIb | 29 (6.5) | 28 (15.6) | |
| III | 2 (0.5) | 6 (3.3) | |
|
| 0.96 | ||
| Ductal | 353 (79.5) | 144 (80.0) | |
| Lobular | 35 (7.9) | 13 (7.2) | |
| Others | 56 (12.6) | 23 (12.8) | |
|
|
| ||
| I | 94 (21.1) | 11 (6.1) | |
| II | 314 (70.0) | 153 (85.0) | |
| III | 36 (8.1) | 16 (8.9) | |
|
|
| ||
| Luminal A | 264 (59.5) | 92 (51.1) | |
| Luminal B | 77 (17.3) | 23 (12.8) | |
| HER2+ (HR-) | 29 (6.5) | 14 (7.8) | |
| HER2+ (HR+) | 25 (5.6) | 27 (15.0) | |
| TNBC | 49 (11.0) | 24 (13.3) | |
|
| 0.23 | ||
| Negative | 80 (18.8) | 40 (22.2) | |
| Positive | 364 (82.0) | 140 (77.8) | |
|
| 0.53 | ||
| Negative | 122 (27.5) | 45 (25.0) | |
| Positive | 322 (72.5) | 135 (75) | |
|
|
| ||
| Negative | 390 (87.8) | 139 (77.2) | |
| Positive | 54 (12.2) | 41 (22.8) | |
|
| 18 (10, 30) | 20 (10, 30) | 0.17 |
|
| |||
|
| 0.70 | ||
| 4A | 65 (14.6) | 23 (12.8) | |
| 4B | 74 (16.7) | 35 (19.4) | |
| 4C | 112 (25.2) | 52 (28.9) | |
| 5 | 87 (19.6) | 32 (17.8) | |
| 6 | 106 (23.9) | 38 (21.1) | |
|
|
| ||
| yes | 96 (21.6) | 23 (12.8) | |
| no | 348 (78.4) | 157 (87.2) | |
|
| 1.6 (1.2, 2.1) | 2.1 (1.7, 2.7) |
|
|
| 0.44 | ||
| regular | 27 (6.1) | 14 (7.8) | |
| irregular | 417 (93.9) | 166 (92.2) | |
|
|
| ||
| distinct | 46 (10.4) | 52 (28.9) | |
| indistinct | 398 (89.6) | 128 (71.1) | |
|
|
| ||
| even | 72 (16.2) | 17 (9.4) | |
| uneven | 372 (83.8) | 163 (90.6) | |
|
|
| ||
| present | 209 (47.1) | 52 (28.9) | |
| absent | 235 (52.9) | 128 (71.1) | |
|
| 0.18 | ||
| rich | 424 (95.5) | 176 (97.8) | |
| poor | 20 (4.5) | 4 (2.2) | |
|
|
| ||
| ≥1 | 34 (7.7) | 66 (36.7) | |
| <1 | 410 (92.3) | 114 (63.3) |
OUQ, outer upper quadrant; OLQ, outer lower quadrant; IUQ, inner upper quadrant; ILQ, inner lower quadrant; HR, hormone receptor; TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; US, ultrasound.
Bold value indicates statistical significance.
Univariate Logistic Regression Analysis of SLN Metastasis Based on Preoperative Data in the Training Cohort.
| Variables | P Value | OR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| 0.98 (0.96-1.00) |
|
|
| 1.12 (1.02-1.22) |
|
| 0.50 | 0.86 (0.55-1.34) |
|
| ||
| OLQ vs. OUQ | 0.62 | 0.88 (0.53-1.46) |
| IUQ vs. OUQ | 0.41 | 0.82 (0.51-1.32) |
| ILQ vs. OUQ | 0.79 | 0.90 (0.42-1.93) |
| Center vs. OUQ | 0.64 | 1.28 (0.46-3.54) |
|
| ||
| lobular vs. ductal | 0.78 | 0.91 (0.47-1.77) |
| others vs. ductal | 0.98 | 1.01 (0.60-1.70) |
|
| ||
| Luminal B vs. Luminal A | 0.56 | 0.86 (0.51-1.45) |
| HER2+ (HR-) vs. Luminal A | 0.35 | 1.39 (0.70-2.74) |
| HER2+ (HR+) vs. Luminal A |
| 3.10 (1.71-5.61) |
| TNBC vs. Luminal A | 0.22 | 1.41 (0.82-2.42) |
|
| 0.32 | 0.76 (0.44-1.31) |
|
|
| 0.71 (0.44-1.14) |
|
|
| 1.79 (0.97-3.32) |
|
|
| 1.01 (1.00-1.02) |
|
| ||
|
| 0.25 | 0.71 (0.41-1.26) |
|
|
| 3.33 (2.42-4.59) |
|
| 0.73 | 0.85 (0.35-2.08) |
|
| 0.22 | 0.66 (0.34-1.29) |
|
|
| 1.82 (0.92-3.61) |
|
|
| 8.97 (5.10-15.78) |
|
|
| 2.81 (0.64-12.34) |
|
|
| 0.10 (0.05-0.22) |
CI, confidence interval; OUQ, outer upper quadrant; OLQ, outer lower quadrant; IUQ, inner upper quadrant; ILQ, inner lower quadrant; HR, hormone receptor; TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; US, ultrasound.
Bold value are variables with P <0.2 which are candidate variables in multivariable regression analysis.
Multivariate logistic regression analysis of SLN metastasis based on preoperative data in the training cohort.
| Variables | β# | P value | OR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| -0.03 | 0.059 | 0.97 (0.94-1.00) |
|
| 0.14 | 0.071 | 1.14 (0.99-1.31) |
|
| 0.02 | 0.016 | 1.02 (1.00-1.04) |
|
| 1.46 | <.001 | 4.29 (2.88-6.39) |
|
| -1.25 | 0.015 | 0.29 (0.10-0.79) |
|
| 2.69 | <.001 | 14.79 (6.45-33.94) |
|
| -3.06 | <.001 | 0.05 (0.02-0.13) |
|
| 0.19 | 0.937 | 1.20 (0.01-107.65) |
#Unstandardized β coefficients were calculated from the multivariate logistic regression analysis based on stepwise regression (AIC: 267.85).
*Variables based on US results.
CI, confidence interval.
Figure 2Nomogram to predict the rate of SLN metastasis in clinically LN-negative breast cancer patients. The nomogram to predict SLN-metastasis-risk was created based on the above seven predictive factors. To use the nomogram, the value of each patient is placed on each variable axis and a line is drawn upward to determine the number of received points for each variable value. The sum of these numbers is located on the total point axis and a line down the bottom axis is drawn to determine the probability of SLN metastasis.
Figure 3Calibration curve comparing predicted and actual SLN-metastasis-risk probabilities. (A) Calibration curve of the nomogram in the training cohort. (B) Calibration curve of the nomogram in the validation cohort. The calibration curve describes the calibration of the model according to the consistency between the predicted risk of SLN metastasis and the observed results of SLN metastasis. The x-axis represents the predicted probability of SLN metastasis. T The y-axis represents the actual SLN metastasis probability. he gray dotted line represents the perfect prediction of the ideal model. The solid blue line represents the prediction of the nomogram, and the solid orange line represents the bootstrap-corrected estimates. A well calibrated curve of a nomogram would be near the ideal line.
Figure 4Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves of the nomograms in training and validation cohort. (A) The ROC curve of the training cohort; (B) The ROC curve of the validation cohort. The nomogram had a good discriminative performance with Area under ROC curve (AUC) (95% confidence interval) of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89-0.95) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.74-0.89) in the training and validation cohort, respectively.
Accuracy of the prediction score of the nomogram for estimating the risk of SLN metastasis.
| Variables | P Value (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Training Cohort | Validation Cohort | |
|
| 0.92 (0.89-0.95) | 0.82 (0.74-0.89) |
|
| 55 | 55 |
|
| 0.66 (0.50-0.79) | 0.93 (0.86-0.97) |
|
| 0.91 (0.85-0.95) | 0.77 (0.72-0.81) |
|
| 0.85 (0.79-0.90) | 0.80 (0.76-0.84) |
|
| 0.71 (0.54-0.83) | 0.55 (0.47-0.62) |
|
| 0.89 (0.83-0.94) | 0.97 (0.94-0.99) |
CI, confidence interval; AUC, the area under the receiver operating curve; C-Index, concordance index.
Figure 5Decision curve analysis (DCA) of the nomogram. (A) The DCA curve of the training cohort; (B) The DCA curve of the validation cohort. The orange line shows the nomogram. The green line represents the assumption that all patients have undergone SLNB. The dark blue line represents the assumption that no patients have undergone SLNB. The decision curve revealed that it was more benefit to use the nomogram in our study to predict SLN metastasis than the treat-all-patients scheme or the treat-none scheme, when the threshold probability of a patient is 2%-92%, and 6%-50% in the training cohort and validation cohort, respectively.