Xiaojiang Wang1, Lina Tang2, Weiqin Huang2, Zhaolei Cui3, Dan Hu4, Zhaoming Zhong2, Xiufeng Wu5. 1. Department of Molecular Pathology, Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital & Fujian Cancer Hospital, No. 420 Fuma Road, Fuzhou, 350014, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Ultrasound, Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital & Fujian Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou, 350014, Fujian, People's Republic of China. 3. Laboratory of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Research, Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Tumor Biotherapy, Department of Clinical Laboratory, Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital & Fujian Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou, 350014, Fujian, People's Republic of China. 4. Department of Pathology, Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital & Fujian Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou, 350014, Fujian, People's Republic of China. 5. Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital & Fujian Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou, 350014, Fujian, People's Republic of China. wxf200104@hotmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the value of the combination of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) and blue dye (BD) for SLN detection in patients with clinically negative node breast cancer. METHODS: Patients with clinically negative node breast cancer were randomized into two cohorts for SLN biopsy (SLNB): the combination method cohort using CEUS and BD together, and the single BD method cohort. Standard axillary lymph node dissection was performed if any of the SLNs confirmed positive by pathology. The identification rate, the number of SLNs removed and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were evaluated between two cohorts. In addition, we assessed the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, false-negative rate of CEUS for diagnosis of SLNs based on patterns of CEUS enhancement. RESULTS: 144 consecutive patients with clinically negative node breast cancer were randomized into two cohorts. Each cohort consisted of 72 cases. In the combination method cohort, contrast-enhanced lymphatic vessels were clearly visualized and SLNs were accurately localized in 72 cases. The identification rate and the mean number of SLNs detected by the combination method were 100% (72/72) and 3.26 (1-9), respectively. In contrast, in the single BD method cohort, SLNs in 69 cases were successfully identified. The identification rate and the mean number of SLNs using BD alone were 95.8% (69/72) and 2.21 (1-4), respectively. According to patterns of CEUS enhancement, the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and the FNR of CEUS for SLN diagnosis were 69.2%, 96.6%, 91.7%, and 30.8%, respectively. After a median follow-up of 50 months for the combination method cohort and 51 months for the blue dye alone cohort, five patients in the combination method cohort and nine in the blue dye alone cohort had recurrence. RFS rates showed no significant difference (P = 0.26) between two cohorts. CONCLUSION: The combination of CEUS and BD is more effective than BD alone for SLNB in clinically negative node patients with an identification rate as high as 100%. Use of BD and CEUS in combination may provide the possibility of a non-radioactive alternative method for SLNB in centers without access to radioisotope.
PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the value of the combination of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) and blue dye (BD) for SLN detection in patients with clinically negative node breast cancer. METHODS:Patients with clinically negative node breast cancer were randomized into two cohorts for SLN biopsy (SLNB): the combination method cohort using CEUS and BD together, and the single BD method cohort. Standard axillary lymph node dissection was performed if any of the SLNs confirmed positive by pathology. The identification rate, the number of SLNs removed and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were evaluated between two cohorts. In addition, we assessed the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, false-negative rate of CEUS for diagnosis of SLNs based on patterns of CEUS enhancement. RESULTS: 144 consecutive patients with clinically negative node breast cancer were randomized into two cohorts. Each cohort consisted of 72 cases. In the combination method cohort, contrast-enhanced lymphatic vessels were clearly visualized and SLNs were accurately localized in 72 cases. The identification rate and the mean number of SLNs detected by the combination method were 100% (72/72) and 3.26 (1-9), respectively. In contrast, in the single BD method cohort, SLNs in 69 cases were successfully identified. The identification rate and the mean number of SLNs using BD alone were 95.8% (69/72) and 2.21 (1-4), respectively. According to patterns of CEUS enhancement, the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and the FNR of CEUS for SLN diagnosis were 69.2%, 96.6%, 91.7%, and 30.8%, respectively. After a median follow-up of 50 months for the combination method cohort and 51 months for the blue dye alone cohort, five patients in the combination method cohort and nine in the blue dye alone cohort had recurrence. RFS rates showed no significant difference (P = 0.26) between two cohorts. CONCLUSION: The combination of CEUS and BD is more effective than BD alone for SLNB in clinically negative node patients with an identification rate as high as 100%. Use of BD and CEUS in combination may provide the possibility of a non-radioactive alternative method for SLNB in centers without access to radioisotope.
Authors: Takamaru Ashikaga; David N Krag; Stephanie R Land; Thomas B Julian; Stewart J Anderson; Ann M Brown; Joan M Skelly; Seth P Harlow; Donald L Weaver; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Joseph P Costantino; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2010-08-01 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: David N Krag; Stewart J Anderson; Thomas B Julian; Ann M Brown; Seth P Harlow; Joseph P Costantino; Takamaru Ashikaga; Donald L Weaver; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Lynne M Jalovec; Thomas G Frazier; R Dirk Noyes; André Robidoux; Hugh Mc Scarth; Norman Wolmark Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Robert E Mansel; Lesley Fallowfield; Mark Kissin; Amit Goyal; Robert G Newcombe; J Michael Dixon; Constantinos Yiangou; Kieran Horgan; Nigel Bundred; Ian Monypenny; David England; Mark Sibbering; Tholkifl I Abdullah; Lester Barr; Utheshtra Chetty; Dudley H Sinnett; Anne Fleissig; Dayalan Clarke; Peter J Ell Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-05-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Armando E Giuliano; Kelly K Hunt; Karla V Ballman; Peter D Beitsch; Pat W Whitworth; Peter W Blumencranz; A Marilyn Leitch; Sukamal Saha; Linda M McCall; Monica Morrow Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-02-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Viviana Galimberti; Bernard F Cole; Stefano Zurrida; Giuseppe Viale; Alberto Luini; Paolo Veronesi; Paola Baratella; Camelia Chifu; Manuela Sargenti; Mattia Intra; Oreste Gentilini; Mauro G Mastropasqua; Giovanni Mazzarol; Samuele Massarut; Jean-Rémi Garbay; Janez Zgajnar; Hanne Galatius; Angelo Recalcati; David Littlejohn; Monika Bamert; Marco Colleoni; Karen N Price; Meredith M Regan; Aron Goldhirsch; Alan S Coates; Richard D Gelber; Umberto Veronesi Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-03-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Anthony Lucci; Linda Mackie McCall; Peter D Beitsch; Patrick W Whitworth; Douglas S Reintgen; Peter W Blumencranz; A Marilyn Leitch; Sukumal Saha; Kelly K Hunt; Armando E Giuliano Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-05-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Judy C Boughey; Vera J Suman; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Gretchen M Ahrendt; Lee G Wilke; Bret Taback; A Marilyn Leitch; Henry M Kuerer; Monet Bowling; Teresa S Flippo-Morton; David R Byrd; David W Ollila; Thomas B Julian; Sarah A McLaughlin; Linda McCall; W Fraser Symmans; Huong T Le-Petross; Bruce G Haffty; Thomas A Buchholz; Heidi Nelson; Kelly K Hunt Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 56.272