Yi-Lin Xu1, Xue-Jing Liu1, Ying Zhu1, Hong Lu1. 1. Department of Breast Imaging, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center of Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy of Tianjin (Ministry of Education), Key Laboratory of Breast Cancer Prevention and Therapy of Education Ministry, Tianjin, China.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of preoperative identification of sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) by contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for patients with breast cancer. Methods: The patients with T1-T2N0M0 breast cancer who were scheduled for primary surgical treatment were recruited. All the patients had received a periareolar intradermal injection of an ultrasonic contrast agent (SonoVue, Bracco, Milan, Italy) followed by an ultrasound to identify contrast-enhanced SLNs. A guidewire was deployed to localize the SLN. Methylene blue stain was used to help trace SLNs during the operation. The identification rate and accuracy rate were recorded. The number of SLNs labeled by two methods was counted and compared using Wilcoxon testing. Results: A total of 366 SLNs were detected in 72 patients by methylene blue intraoperatively, with a median of 5 lymph nodes [interquartile range (IQR), 4-6] per patient. A total of 95 SLNs were detected in 63 patients (87.5%) by CEUS, with a median of 1 lymph node (IQR, 1-2) per patient. The number of SLNs detected by CEUS was significantly less than that labeled by the methylene blue staining method (Z=-7.362, P=0000). Pathology confirmed 12 single metastases in all the lymph nodes examined, 10 of which were the only lymph node identified by CEUS. Conclusions: Periareolar intradermal injection of an ultrasonic contrast agent was an effective and convenient supplementary to localize SLNs. The technique was expected to improve the accuracy of axillary staging with minor surgical trauma and postoperative complications. 2022 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
Background: This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of preoperative identification of sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) by contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for patients with breast cancer. Methods: The patients with T1-T2N0M0 breast cancer who were scheduled for primary surgical treatment were recruited. All the patients had received a periareolar intradermal injection of an ultrasonic contrast agent (SonoVue, Bracco, Milan, Italy) followed by an ultrasound to identify contrast-enhanced SLNs. A guidewire was deployed to localize the SLN. Methylene blue stain was used to help trace SLNs during the operation. The identification rate and accuracy rate were recorded. The number of SLNs labeled by two methods was counted and compared using Wilcoxon testing. Results: A total of 366 SLNs were detected in 72 patients by methylene blue intraoperatively, with a median of 5 lymph nodes [interquartile range (IQR), 4-6] per patient. A total of 95 SLNs were detected in 63 patients (87.5%) by CEUS, with a median of 1 lymph node (IQR, 1-2) per patient. The number of SLNs detected by CEUS was significantly less than that labeled by the methylene blue staining method (Z=-7.362, P=0000). Pathology confirmed 12 single metastases in all the lymph nodes examined, 10 of which were the only lymph node identified by CEUS. Conclusions: Periareolar intradermal injection of an ultrasonic contrast agent was an effective and convenient supplementary to localize SLNs. The technique was expected to improve the accuracy of axillary staging with minor surgical trauma and postoperative complications. 2022 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast diseases; contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS); sentinel lymph node (SLN)
Authors: Viviana Galimberti; Bernard F Cole; Giuseppe Viale; Paolo Veronesi; Elisa Vicini; Mattia Intra; Giovanni Mazzarol; Samuele Massarut; Janez Zgajnar; Mario Taffurelli; David Littlejohn; Michael Knauer; Carlo Tondini; Angelo Di Leo; Marco Colleoni; Meredith M Regan; Alan S Coates; Richard D Gelber; Aron Goldhirsch Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: U Veronesi; G Paganelli; V Galimberti; G Viale; S Zurrida; M Bedoni; A Costa; C de Cicco; J G Geraghty; A Luini; V Sacchini; P Veronesi Journal: Lancet Date: 1997-06-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Mila Donker; Geertjan van Tienhoven; Marieke E Straver; Philip Meijnen; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Robert E Mansel; Luigi Cataliotti; A Helen Westenberg; Jean H G Klinkenbijl; Lorenzo Orzalesi; Willem H Bouma; Huub C J van der Mijle; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Sanne C Veltkamp; Leen Slaets; Nicole J Duez; Peter W de Graaf; Thijs van Dalen; Andreas Marinelli; Herman Rijna; Marko Snoj; Nigel J Bundred; Jos W S Merkus; Yazid Belkacemi; Patrick Petignat; Dominic A X Schinagl; Corneel Coens; Carlo G M Messina; Jan Bogaerts; Emiel J T Rutgers Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Ali R Sever; Philippa Mills; Susan E Jones; Karina Cox; Jennifer Weeks; David Fish; Peter A Jones Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Barry B Goldberg; Daniel A Merton; Ji-Bin Liu; Mathew Thakur; George F Murphy; Larry Needleman; Audun Tornes; Flemming Forsberg Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Armando E Giuliano; Karla V Ballman; Linda McCall; Peter D Beitsch; Meghan B Brennan; Pond R Kelemen; David W Ollila; Nora M Hansen; Pat W Whitworth; Peter W Blumencranz; A Marilyn Leitch; Sukamal Saha; Kelly K Hunt; Monica Morrow Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-09-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Montserrat Solá; José A Alberro; Manuel Fraile; Pilar Santesteban; Manuel Ramos; Rafael Fabregas; Antonio Moral; Blas Ballester; Sergi Vidal Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-09-07 Impact factor: 5.344