Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Preoperative Axillary Ultrasound and Fine-needle Aspiration Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Axillary Metastases in Patients with Breast Cancer: Predictors of Accuracy and Future Implications

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The utility of axillary lymph node dissection after sentinel lymph node biopsy has been called into question. We sought to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of axillary ultrasound and fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) in the identification of axillary nodal metastasis in early breast cancer patients.

Methods

Data of patients with stage I and II breast cancer who underwent surgery and staging were reviewed. Axillary ultrasound findings were assessed and lymph node status recorded after axillary dissection. The data were cross-tabulated, and test characteristics were calculated.

Results

Of 235 patients, none demonstrated more than 2 positive sentinel lymph nodes. Ductal carcinoma was present in 68 %, estrogen and progesterone receptors were positive in 81 and 64 %, respectively, Her-2/neu was positive in 10 %, and 36 % were axillary node positive. The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound alone were 55 and 88 %, respectively. Predictors of abnormal ultrasound included size of metastasis, estrogen receptor and Her-2 status, tumor grade, and presence of lymphovascular invasion. Addition of FNAB increased the sensitivity and specificity to 69 and 100 %. In conjunction with FNAB, the positive and negative predictive values were 100 and 54 %, respectively. Ten percent of patients with nodal metastases demonstrated a positive FNAB. Patients with a positive FNAB did not harbor more nodal metastases or a greater proportion of gross extranodal disease compared to patients not subjected to FNAB.

Conclusions

Axillary ultrasound with FNAB has an accuracy of >70% in this series. It is easily performed and may avoid unnecessary sentinel lymph node biopsy in a significant number of patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cody HS 3rd. Current surgical management of breast cancer. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2002;14:45–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mansel RE, Fallowfield L, Kissin M, et al. Randomized multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy versus standard axillary treatment in operable breast cancer: the ALMANAC Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:599–609.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Veronesi U, Viale G, Paganelli G, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: ten-year results of a randomized controlled study. Ann Surg. 2010;251:595–600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Orr RK. The impact of prophylactic axillary node dissection on breast cancer survival—a Bayesian meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 1999;6:109–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sakorafas GH, Safioleas M. Breast cancer surgery: an historical narrative. Part III. From the sunset of the 19th to the dawn of the 21st century. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2010;19:145–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Fisher B, Bauer M, Wickerham DL, et al. Relation of number of positive axillary nodes to the prognosis of patients with primary breast cancer. An NSABP update. Cancer. 1983;52:1551–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gipponi M, Bassetti C, Canavese G, et al. Sentinel lymph node as a new marker for therapeutic planning in breast cancer patients. J Surg Oncol. 2004;85:102–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Genta F, Zanon E, Camanni M, et al. Cost/accuracy ratio analysis in breast cancer patients undergoing ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology, sentinel node biopsy, and frozen section of node. World J Surg. 2007;31:1155–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Alvarez S, Añorbe E, Alcorta P, López F, Alonso I, Cortés J. Role of sonography in the diagnosis of axillary lymph node metastases in breast cancer: a systematic review. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:1342–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Temple LK, Baron R, Cody HS 3rd, et al. Sensory morbidity after sentinel lymph node biopsy and axillary dissection: a prospective study of 233 women. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9:654–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Boughey JC, Moriarty JP, Degnim AC, Gregg MS, Egginton JS, Long KH. Cost modeling of preoperative axillary ultrasound and fine-needle aspiration to guide surgery for invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:953–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tahir M, Osman KA, Shabbir J, et al. Preoperative axillary staging in breast cancer—saving time and resources. Breast J. 2008;14:369–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Swinson C, Ravichandran D, Nayagam M, Allen S. Ultrasound and fine needle aspiration cytology of the axilla in the pre-operative identification of axillary nodal involvement in breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009;35:1152–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Susini T, Nori J, Olivieri S, et al. Predicting the status of axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer: a multiparameter approach including axillary ultrasound scanning. Breast. 2009;18:103–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bonnema J, van Geel AN, van Ooijen B, et al. Ultrasound-guided aspiration biopsy for detection of nonpalpable axillary node metastases in breast cancer patients: new diagnostic method. World J Surg. 1997;21:270–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Motomura K, Inaji H, Komoike Y, et al. Gamma probe and ultrasonographically-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2001;27:141–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Yang WT, Ahuja A, Tang A, Suen M, King W, Metreweli C. High resolution sonographic detection of axillary lymph node metastases in breast cancer. J Ultrasound Med. 1996;15:241–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Vaidya JS, Vyas JJ, Thakur MH, Khandelwal KC, Mittra I. Role of ultrasonography to detect axillary node involvement in operable breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1996;22:140–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Verbanck J, Vandewiele I, De Winter H, Tytgat J, Van Aelst F, Tanghe W. Value of axillary ultrasonography and sonographically guided puncture of axillary nodes: a prospective study in 144 consecutive patients. J Clin Ultrasound. 1997;25:53–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. de Kanter AY, van Eijck CH, van Geel AN, et al. Multicentre study of ultrasonographically guided axillary node biopsy in patients with breast cancer. Br J Surg. 1999;86:1459–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Krishnamurthy S, Sneige N, Bedi DG, et al. Role of ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of indeterminate and suspicious axillary lymph nodes in the initial staging of breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2002;95:982–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sapino A, Cassoni P, Zanon E, et al. Ultrasonographically-guided fine-needle aspiration of axillary lymph nodes: role in breast cancer management. Br J Cancer. 2003;88:702–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Boughey JC, Middleton LP, Harker L, et al. Utility of ultrasound and fine-needle aspiration biopsy of the axilla in the assessment of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Am J Surg. 2007;194:450–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kuerer HM, Newman LA, Fornage BD, et al. Role of axillary lymph node dissection after tumor downstaging with induction chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 1998;5:673–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Klauber-Demore N, Kuzmiak C, Rager EL, et al. High-resolution axillary ultrasound is a poor prognostic test for determining pathologic lymph node status in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2004;188:386–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Vlastos G, Fornage BD, Mirza NQ, et al. The correlation of axillary ultrasonography with histologic breast cancer downstaging after induction chemotherapy. Am J Surg. 2000;179:446–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Tiwari RK, Borgen PI, Wong GY, Cordon-Cardo C, Osborne MP. HER-2/neu amplification and overexpression in primary human breast cancer is associated with early metastasis. Anticancer Res. 1992;12:419–25.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Latosinsky S, Berrang TS, Cutter CS, et al. CAGS and ACS Evidence Based Reviews in Surgery. 40. Axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis. Can J Surg. 2012;55:66–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hurkmans CW, Borger JH, Rutgers EJ, et al. Quality assurance of axillary radiotherapy in the EORTC AMAROS trial 10981/22023: the dummy run. Radiother Oncol. 2003;68:233–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Solon JG, Power C, Al-Azawi D, Duke D, Hill AD. Ultrasound-guided core biopsy: an effective method of detecting axillary nodal metastases. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;214:12–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, et al. Axillary dissection vs. no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2011;305:569–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Cools-Lartigue MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cools-Lartigue, J., Sinclair, A., Trabulsi, N. et al. Preoperative Axillary Ultrasound and Fine-needle Aspiration Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Axillary Metastases in Patients with Breast Cancer: Predictors of Accuracy and Future Implications. Ann Surg Oncol 20, 819–827 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2609-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2609-7

Keywords

Navigation