Jiqiao Yang1,2, Tao He1, Yunhao Wu1, Zhoukai Fu1, Qing Lv1, Shan Lu1, Xiaodong Wang1, Hongjiang Li1, Jing Wang1, Jie Chen3. 1. Department of Breast Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, China. 2. Clinical Research Center for Breast Disease, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 3. Department of Breast Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, China. chenjiewestchina@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In order to achieve an optimized method of axillary staging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in breast cancer patients with pretreatment positive axillary lymph nodes, we evaluated the feasibility and accuracy of nanoparticle-assisted axillary staging (NAAS) which combines carbon nanoparticles with standard sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) with radioisotope and blue dye. METHODS: Invasive breast cancer patients with pre-NAC positive axillary lymph nodes who converted to ycN0 and received surgeries from November 2020 to March 2021 were included. All patients underwent ipsilateral NAAS followed by axillary lymph node dissection. Detection rate (DR), false-negative rate (FNR), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy of axillary staging were calculated. RESULTS: Eighty of 136 (58.8%) breast cancer patients converted to ycN0 after NAC and received NAAS. The DR, NPV and accuracy was 95.0%, 93.3% and 97.4% for NAAS, respectively. And the FNR was 4.2% (2/48) for NAAS, which was lower than that of standard dual-tracer SLNB (SD-SLNB) (9.5%, 4/42). Pretreatment clinical T4 classification was a risk factor for detection failure in NAAS (p = 0.016). When patients with pretreatment inflammatory breast cancers were excluded from analysis, FNR dropped to 2.2% (1/45) for NAAS. CONCLUSION: NAAS revealed great performance in invasive breast cancer patients with pre-NAC positive axillary lymph nodes who converted to ycN0. The application of NAAS reached a better balance between more accurate axillary evaluation and less intervention. Trial registration Chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2000039814). Registered Nov 11, 2020.
PURPOSE: In order to achieve an optimized method of axillary staging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in breast cancer patients with pretreatment positive axillary lymph nodes, we evaluated the feasibility and accuracy of nanoparticle-assisted axillary staging (NAAS) which combines carbon nanoparticles with standard sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) with radioisotope and blue dye. METHODS: Invasive breast cancer patients with pre-NAC positive axillary lymph nodes who converted to ycN0 and received surgeries from November 2020 to March 2021 were included. All patients underwent ipsilateral NAAS followed by axillary lymph node dissection. Detection rate (DR), false-negative rate (FNR), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy of axillary staging were calculated. RESULTS: Eighty of 136 (58.8%) breast cancer patients converted to ycN0 after NAC and received NAAS. The DR, NPV and accuracy was 95.0%, 93.3% and 97.4% for NAAS, respectively. And the FNR was 4.2% (2/48) for NAAS, which was lower than that of standard dual-tracer SLNB (SD-SLNB) (9.5%, 4/42). Pretreatment clinical T4 classification was a risk factor for detection failure in NAAS (p = 0.016). When patients with pretreatment inflammatory breast cancers were excluded from analysis, FNR dropped to 2.2% (1/45) for NAAS. CONCLUSION: NAAS revealed great performance in invasive breast cancer patients with pre-NAC positive axillary lymph nodes who converted to ycN0. The application of NAAS reached a better balance between more accurate axillary evaluation and less intervention. Trial registration Chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2000039814). Registered Nov 11, 2020.
Authors: Jennifer L Baker; Shirin Muhsen; Emily C Zabor; Michelle Stempel; Mary L Gemignani Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2018-11-30 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Emilia J Diego; Priscilla F McAuliffe; Atilla Soran; Kandace P McGuire; Ronald R Johnson; Marguerite Bonaventura; Gretchen M Ahrendt Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-01-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Jean-Francois Boileau; Brigitte Poirier; Mark Basik; Claire M B Holloway; Louis Gaboury; Lucas Sideris; Sarkis Meterissian; Angel Arnaout; Muriel Brackstone; David R McCready; Stephen E Karp; Isabelle Trop; Andre Lisbona; Frances C Wright; Rami J Younan; Louise Provencher; Erica Patocskai; Atilla Omeroglu; Andre Robidoux Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mila Donker; Marieke E Straver; Jelle Wesseling; Claudette E Loo; Margaret Schot; Caroline A Drukker; Harm van Tinteren; Gabe S Sonke; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 12.969
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
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: Christian Siso; Juan de Torres; Antonio Esgueva-Colmenarejo; Martin Espinosa-Bravo; Neus Rus; Octavi Cordoba; Roberto Rodriguez; Vicente Peg; Isabel T Rubio Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Seho Park; Ja Seung Koo; Gun Min Kim; Joohyuk Sohn; Seung Il Kim; Young Up Cho; Byeong-Woo Park; Vivian Youngjean Park; Jung Hyun Yoon; Hee Jung Moon; Min Jung Kim; Eun-Kyung Kim Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 4.679