Vishnu Prasad Pulappadi1, Shashi Paul1, Smriti Hari1, Ekta Dhamija1, Smita Manchanda1, Kamal Kataria2, Sandeep Mathur3, Kalaivani Mani4, Ajay Gogia5, Svs Deo6. 1. Department of Radiodiagnosis and Interventional Radiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. 2. Department of Surgical Disciplines, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. 3. Department of Pathology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. 4. Department of Biostatistics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. 6. Department of Surgical Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of axillary ultrasonography (axUS) and ultrasound-guided pre-operative wire localisation of pre-treatment positive clipped node (CN) for prediction of nodal response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in node positive breast carcinoma patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A prospective study was conducted between June 2018 and August 2020 after Ethics Committee approval. Breast carcinoma patients (cT1-cT4b) with palpable axillary nodes (cN1-cN3) and suitable for NACT were recruited after written informed consent. Single, most suspicious node was biopsied and clipped. Nodal response to NACT was assessed on axUS. Wire localisation of CN was performed prior to axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). Diagnostic performances of axUS and CN excision were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 69 patients evaluated, 32 patients (mean age, 43.5 ± 11.8 years; females, 31/32 [97%]; pre-menopausal, 18/32 [56.3%]) with metastatic nodes who received NACT were included. Nodal pathological complete response rate was 34.4% (11/32) overall and 70% (7/10) in patients with ≤2 suspicious nodes on pre-NACT axUS. False-negative rates (FNRs) of axUS and CN excision were 4.8% and 28.6% respectively. Combination of post-NACT axUS and CN excision had an FNR of 4.8% overall and 0% in patients with ≤2 suspicious nodes on pre-NACT axUS. CONCLUSION: Combination of AxUS and ultrasound-guided wire localisation of pre-treatment positive CN has high diagnostic accuracy for nodal restaging after NACT in node positive breast cancer patients. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Addition of axUS assessment to wire localisation of CN reduces its FNR for detecting residual metastasis after NACT.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of axillary ultrasonography (axUS) and ultrasound-guided pre-operative wire localisation of pre-treatment positive clipped node (CN) for prediction of nodal response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in node positive breast carcinoma patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A prospective study was conducted between June 2018 and August 2020 after Ethics Committee approval. Breast carcinoma patients (cT1-cT4b) with palpable axillary nodes (cN1-cN3) and suitable for NACT were recruited after written informed consent. Single, most suspicious node was biopsied and clipped. Nodal response to NACT was assessed on axUS. Wire localisation of CN was performed prior to axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). Diagnostic performances of axUS and CN excision were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 69 patients evaluated, 32 patients (mean age, 43.5 ± 11.8 years; females, 31/32 [97%]; pre-menopausal, 18/32 [56.3%]) with metastatic nodes who received NACT were included. Nodal pathological complete response rate was 34.4% (11/32) overall and 70% (7/10) in patients with ≤2 suspicious nodes on pre-NACT axUS. False-negative rates (FNRs) of axUS and CN excision were 4.8% and 28.6% respectively. Combination of post-NACT axUS and CN excision had an FNR of 4.8% overall and 0% in patients with ≤2 suspicious nodes on pre-NACT axUS. CONCLUSION: Combination of AxUS and ultrasound-guided wire localisation of pre-treatment positive CN has high diagnostic accuracy for nodal restaging after NACT in node positive breast cancer patients. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Addition of axUS assessment to wire localisation of CN reduces its FNR for detecting residual metastasis after NACT.
Authors: Huong T Le-Petross; Linda M McCall; Kelly K Hunt; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Gretchen M Ahrendt; Lee G Wilke; Karla V Ballman; Judy C Boughey Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2018-01-30 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Gary H Lyman; Mark R Somerfield; Linda D Bosserman; Cheryl L Perkins; Donald L Weaver; Armando E Giuliano Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-12-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Abigail S Caudle; Wei T Yang; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Dalliah M Black; Michael Z Gilcrease; Isabelle Bedrosian; Brian P Hobbs; Sarah M DeSnyder; Rosa F Hwang; Beatriz E Adrada; Simona F Shaitelman; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Benjamin D Smith; Rosalind P Candelaria; Gildy V Babiera; Basak E Dogan; Lumarie Santiago; Kelly K Hunt; Henry M Kuerer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 44.544
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
Authors: Won Hwa Kim; Hye Jung Kim; See Hyung Kim; Jin Hyang Jung; Ho Yong Park; Jeeyeon Lee; Wan Wook Kim; Ji Young Park; Yee Soo Chae; Soo Jung Lee Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2019-08-30 Impact factor: 4.430