Joachim Diessner1, Laura Anders2, Saskia Herbert2, Matthias Kiesel2, Thorsten Bley3, Tanja Schlaiss2, Stephanie Sauer3, Achim Wöckel2, Catharina Bartmann2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital, Josef-Schneider-Str. 4, 97080, Würzburg, Germany. Diessner_j@ukw.de. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital, Josef-Schneider-Str. 4, 97080, Würzburg, Germany. 3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital, Josef-Schneider-Straße 2, 97080, Würzburg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The reliable detection of tumor-infiltrated axillary lymph nodes for breast cancer [BC] patients plays a decisive role in further therapy. We aimed to find out whether cross-sectional imaging techniques could improve sensitivity for pretherapeutic axillary staging in nodal-positive BC patients compared to conventional imaging such as mammography and sonography. METHODS: Data for breast cancer patients with tumor-infiltrated axillary lymph nodes having received surgery between 2014 and 2020 were included in this study. All examinations (sonography, mammography, computed tomography [CT] and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) were interpreted by board-certified specialists in radiology. The sensitivity of different imaging modalities was calculated, and binary logistic regression analyses were performed to detect variables influencing the detection of positive lymph nodes. RESULTS: All included 382 breast cancer patients had received conventional imaging, while 52.61% of the patients had received cross-sectional imaging. The sensitivity of the combination of all imaging modalities was 68.89%. The combination of MRI and CT showed 63.83% and the combination of sonography and mammography showed 36.11% sensitivity. CONCLUSION: We could demonstrate that cross-sectional imaging can improve the sensitivity of the detection of tumor-infiltrated axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer patients. Only the safe detection of these lymph nodes at the time of diagnosis enables the evaluation of the response to neoadjuvant therapy, thereby allowing access to prognosis and improving new post-neoadjuvant therapies.
PURPOSE: The reliable detection of tumor-infiltrated axillary lymph nodes for breast cancer [BC] patients plays a decisive role in further therapy. We aimed to find out whether cross-sectional imaging techniques could improve sensitivity for pretherapeutic axillary staging in nodal-positive BC patients compared to conventional imaging such as mammography and sonography. METHODS: Data for breast cancer patients with tumor-infiltrated axillary lymph nodes having received surgery between 2014 and 2020 were included in this study. All examinations (sonography, mammography, computed tomography [CT] and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) were interpreted by board-certified specialists in radiology. The sensitivity of different imaging modalities was calculated, and binary logistic regression analyses were performed to detect variables influencing the detection of positive lymph nodes. RESULTS: All included 382 breast cancer patients had received conventional imaging, while 52.61% of the patients had received cross-sectional imaging. The sensitivity of the combination of all imaging modalities was 68.89%. The combination of MRI and CT showed 63.83% and the combination of sonography and mammography showed 36.11% sensitivity. CONCLUSION: We could demonstrate that cross-sectional imaging can improve the sensitivity of the detection of tumor-infiltrated axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer patients. Only the safe detection of these lymph nodes at the time of diagnosis enables the evaluation of the response to neoadjuvant therapy, thereby allowing access to prognosis and improving new post-neoadjuvant therapies.
Authors: Pascal A T Baltzer; Matthias Dietzel; Hartmut P Burmeister; Ramy Zoubi; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Oumar Camara; Werner A Kaiser Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Marije F Bakker; Stéphanie V de Lange; Ruud M Pijnappel; Ritse M Mann; Petra H M Peeters; Evelyn M Monninkhof; Marleen J Emaus; Claudette E Loo; Robertus H C Bisschops; Marc B I Lobbes; Matthijn D F de Jong; Katya M Duvivier; Jeroen Veltman; Nico Karssemeijer; Harry J de Koning; Paul J van Diest; Willem P T M Mali; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Wouter B Veldhuis; Carla H van Gils Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Samia Al-Hattali; Sarah J Vinnicombe; Nazleen Muhammad Gowdh; Andrew Evans; Sharon Armstrong; Douglas Adamson; Colin A Purdie; E Jane Macaskill Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2019-12-26 Impact factor: 3.909