4.7 Review

Pretherapeutic Imaging for Axillary Staging in Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Ultrasound, MRI and FDG PET

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 10, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10071543

Keywords

meta-analysis; ultrasound; magnetic resonance imaging; positron emission tomography; breast cancer; lymph node; micrometastasis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ultrasound is effective in detecting high metastatic burden in axillary lymph nodes without upstaging most micrometastases, while MRI and PET tend to detect micrometastases.
Background: This systematic review aimed at comparing performances of ultrasonography (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) for axillary staging, with a focus on micro- or micrometastases. Methods: A search for relevant studies published between January 2002 and March 2018 was conducted in MEDLINE database. Study quality was assessed using the QUality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies checklist. Sensitivity and specificity were meta-analyzed using a bivariate random effects approach; Results: Across 62 studies (n = 10,374 patients), sensitivity and specificity to detect metastatic ALN were, respectively, 51% (95% CI: 43-59%) and 100% (95% CI: 99-100%) for US, 83% (95% CI: 72-91%) and 85% (95% CI: 72-92%) for MRI, and 49% (95% CI: 39-59%) and 94% (95% CI: 91-96%) for PET. Interestingly, US detects a significant proportion of macrometastases (false negative rate was 0.28 (0.22, 0.34) for more than 2 metastatic ALN and 0.96 (0.86, 0.99) for micrometastases). In contrast, PET tends to detect a significant proportion of micrometastases (true positive rate = 0.41 (0.29, 0.54)). Data are not available for MRI. Conclusions: In comparison with MRI and PET Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG), US is an effective technique for axillary triage, especially to detect high metastatic burden without upstaging majority of micrometastases.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available