| Literature DB >> 35607325 |
Jundong Wang1, Xiaoli Lu1, Xuan Zheng1, Congyan Xia1, Ping Li1.
Abstract
Purpose: To explore the clinical value of preoperative ultrasound signs in evaluating axillary lymph node status in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35607325 PMCID: PMC9124085 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2590647
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oncol ISSN: 1687-8450 Impact factor: 4.501
Baseline information of the patients.
| Subject |
| % |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | ||
| <48 | 82 | 50.62 |
| ≥48 | 80 | 49.38 |
| Family history of breast cancer | ||
| Yes | 11 | 6.79 |
| No | 151 | 93.21 |
| Tumor size | ||
| | 25 | 15.43 |
| | 104 | 64.20 |
| | 33 | 20.37 |
| Axillary lymph node status | ||
| Positive | 62 | 38.27 |
| Negative | 100 | 61.73 |
| Histology | ||
| Ductal | 143 | 88.27 |
| Lobular | 12 | 7.41 |
| Others | 7 | 4.32 |
| Ki67 | ||
| ≤14 | 14 | 8.64 |
| >14 | 148 | 91.36 |
Figure 1Ultrasound signs for different axillary lymph node statuses.
Accuracy of different methods assessing the axillary lymph node status.
| Method |
| True positive rate (%) | False positive rate (%) | False negative rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ultrasound | 162 | 91.94 | 7.00 | 8.06 |
| FNAC | 64 | 85.96 | 0.00 | 14.04 |
Correlation between clinicopathological features and axillary lymph node metastasis.
| Subject | Axillary lymph node status | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive ( | Negative ( |
|
| |
| Age (years) | ||||
| <48 | 33 | 49 | 0.2734 | 0.6011 |
| ≥48 | 29 | 51 | ||
| Family history of breast cancer | ||||
| Yes | 2 | 9 | 2.016 | 0.1556 |
| No | 60 | 91 | ||
| Tumor size | ||||
| | 1 | 24 | 29.33 | <0.0001 |
| | 37 | 67 | ||
| | 24 | 9 | ||
| Histology | ||||
| Ductal | 58 | 85 | 2.916 | 0.2327 |
| Lobular | 3 | 9 | ||
| Others | 1 | 6 | ||
| Ki67 | ||||
| ≤14 | 3 | 11 | 1.840 | 0.1749 |
| >14 | 59 | 89 | ||
Correlation between ultrasound signs and axillary lymph node metastasis.
| Subject | Axillary lymph node status | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive ( | Negative ( |
|
| |
| Quadrant | ||||
| Upper-outside | 32 | 52 | 1.287 | 0.8637 |
| Lower-outside | 11 | 17 | ||
| Lower-inside | 2 | 5 | ||
| Lower-outside | 10 | 18 | ||
| Other | 8 | 8 | ||
| Cortical thickness (mm) | ||||
| <2 | 11 | 34 | 5.290 | 0.0214 |
| ≥2 | 52 | 66 | ||
| Internal echo | ||||
| Homogeneous | 9 | 12 | 0.2148 | 0.6431 |
| Heterogeneous | 53 | 88 | ||
| Margin | ||||
| Smooth | 14 | 34 | 2.916 | 0.2327 |
| Not smooth | 48 | 66 | ||
| Shape | ||||
| Regular | 8 | 21 | 0.2908 | 0.5897 |
| Irregular | 54 | 79 | ||
| Parallel to the skin | ||||
| Yes | 34 | 57 | 0.0726 | 0.7876 |
| No | 28 | 43 | ||
| Calcification | ||||
| Yes | 25 | 35 | 0.4649 | 0.4953 |
| No | 37 | 65 | ||
| Blood flow grade | ||||
| 0-I | 17 | 64 | 20.49 | <0.0001 |
| II-III | 45 | 36 | ||
| Posterior | ||||
| No change | 39 | 69 | 2.897 | 0.4078 |
| Deterioration | 6 | 14 | ||
| Enhancement | 9 | 8 | ||
| Mixed | 8 | 9 | ||
| L/S | ||||
| <2 | 18 | 59 | 13.78 | 0.0002 |
| ≥2 | 44 | 41 | ||
| RI | ||||
| <0.7 | 51 | 94 | 5.618 | 0.0178 |
| ≥0.7 | 11 | 6 | ||
Logistic regression analysis.
| Subject |
| Std. error | Wald (chi-square value) | Degree of freedom (df) |
| OR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor size | 0.7927 | 0.4240 | 3.496 | 1 | 0.0615 | 2.209 |
| Cortical thickness | 0.2532 | 0.3815 | 0.4406 | 1 | 0.5068 | 1.288 |
| Blood flow grade | 1.217 | 0.3730 | 10.65 | 1 | 0.0011 | 3.378 |
| L/S | 1.306 | 0.3674 | 12.64 | 1 | <0.0001 | 3.692 |
| RI | 0.5007 | 0.5798 | 0.7456 | 1 | 0.3879 | 1.6498 |
Figure 2Logistic regression result.
ROC curve-related parameters of each index predicting axillary lymph node status.
| Subject | AUC | Std. error | 95% CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blood flow grade | 0.6329 | 0.0446 | 0.5455-0.7203 | 0.0045 |
| L/S | 0.6498 | 0.0442 | 0.5631-0.7366 | 0.0014 |
| Combination | 0.6898 | 0.0431 | 0.6053-0.7744 | <0.0001 |
Figure 3Axillary lymph node blood flow grade and L/S for predicting the status of axillary lymph nodes separately and combined.