Bo Li1, Xin Zhao2, Qiucheng Wang1, Hui Jing1, Hua Shao1, Lei Zhang1, Wen Cheng1. 1. Department of Ultrasound, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, China. 2. Department of Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Axillary imaging has been earmarked to forecast high nodal burden [≥3 metastatic axillary lymph nodes (ALN)] instead of lymph node metastasis since the Z0011 trial period. We aimed to ascertain the possibility of utilising quantitative shear wave elastography (SWE) to forecast high nodal burden in invasive breast cancer (IBC). METHODS: In our hospital, 324 patients with clinical T1-T2N0 IBC who underwent surgery from June 2020 to October 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. A total of 273 patients (84.3%) were categorized as having a limited nodal burden, while 51 patients (15.7%) had a high nodal burden. The two groups were compared in terms of clinicopathological traits, ultrasonic features, and SWE values. The diagnostic performance for prediction of high nodal burden with the optimal cutoff values was drawn by SWE value. RESULTS: The optimal cutoff values for forecasting high nodal burden were as demonstrated: 119.52 kPa for tumor Emax, 97.31 kPa for tumor Emean, 19.38 for tumor Esd, 26.22 kPa for ALN Emax, 19.79 kPa for ALN Emean, 2.32 for ALN Eratio, 3.34 for ALN Esd. Combined with the ratings of sensitivity and specificity, ALN Emax could be chosen as the optimal index if the best diagnostic achievement was contemplated (AUC: 0.856; 95% CI: 0.802-0.909). CONCLUSIONS: An Emax cutoff 26.22 kPa of ALN, 72% of women with a high nodal burden of axillary disease would be detected, but if used for clinical decision making, 13% of women with a limited nodal burden disease would be potentially over treated. This data can allow us to appropriately ascertain this subgroup and can be used as one of the therapeutic implementation resources for patient decision support. 2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Axillary imaging has been earmarked to forecast high nodal burden [≥3 metastatic axillary lymph nodes (ALN)] instead of lymph node metastasis since the Z0011 trial period. We aimed to ascertain the possibility of utilising quantitative shear wave elastography (SWE) to forecast high nodal burden in invasive breast cancer (IBC). METHODS: In our hospital, 324 patients with clinical T1-T2N0 IBC who underwent surgery from June 2020 to October 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. A total of 273 patients (84.3%) were categorized as having a limited nodal burden, while 51 patients (15.7%) had a high nodal burden. The two groups were compared in terms of clinicopathological traits, ultrasonic features, and SWE values. The diagnostic performance for prediction of high nodal burden with the optimal cutoff values was drawn by SWE value. RESULTS: The optimal cutoff values for forecasting high nodal burden were as demonstrated: 119.52 kPa for tumor Emax, 97.31 kPa for tumor Emean, 19.38 for tumor Esd, 26.22 kPa for ALN Emax, 19.79 kPa for ALN Emean, 2.32 for ALN Eratio, 3.34 for ALN Esd. Combined with the ratings of sensitivity and specificity, ALN Emax could be chosen as the optimal index if the best diagnostic achievement was contemplated (AUC: 0.856; 95% CI: 0.802-0.909). CONCLUSIONS: An Emax cutoff 26.22 kPa of ALN, 72% of women with a high nodal burden of axillary disease would be detected, but if used for clinical decision making, 13% of women with a limited nodal burden disease would be potentially over treated. This data can allow us to appropriately ascertain this subgroup and can be used as one of the therapeutic implementation resources for patient decision support. 2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
High nodal burden; invasive breast cancer (IBC); limited nodal burden; shear wave elastography (SWE)
Authors: T Tateishi; J Machi; E J Feleppa; R Oishi; N Furumoto; L J McCarthy; E Yanagihara; S Uchida; T Noritomi; K Shirouzu Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Tsuyoshi Shiina; Kathryn R Nightingale; Mark L Palmeri; Timothy J Hall; Jeffrey C Bamber; Richard G Barr; Laurent Castera; Byung Ihn Choi; Yi-Hong Chou; David Cosgrove; Christoph F Dietrich; Hong Ding; Dominique Amy; Andre Farrokh; Giovanna Ferraioli; Carlo Filice; Mireen Friedrich-Rust; Kazutaka Nakashima; Fritz Schafer; Ioan Sporea; Shinichi Suzuki; Stephanie Wilson; Masatoshi Kudo Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2015-03-21 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Kathryn L Humphrey; Mansi A Saksena; Phoebe E Freer; Barbara L Smith; Elizabeth A Rafferty Journal: Radiographics Date: 2014 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333
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