4.6 Article

Population-based study of the sensitivity of axillary ultrasound imaging in the preoperative staging of node-positive invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 105, 期 8, 页码 987-995

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10791

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundPreoperative staging of the axilla is important to allow decisions regarding neoadjuvant treatment and the management of the axilla. Invasive lobular carcinoma metastases are difficult to detect because of the infiltrative pattern of the nodal spread. In this study the sensitivity of preoperative axillary staging between invasive lobular (ILC) and ductal (IDC) carcinoma was compared. MethodsAll women diagnosed with pure ILC or IDC in the West of Scotland in 2012-2014 were identified from a database maintained prospectively within the Managed Clinical Network. Pretreatment axillary ultrasound imaging (AUS), core biopsy and fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) results were compared between ILC and IDC. ResultsSome 602 women with ILC and 4199 with IDC had undergone axillary surgery, of whom 209 and 1402 respectively had nodal metastases. Pretreatment AUS sensitivity was significantly lower in ILC than in IDC (321 versus 501 per cent respectively, P<0001; OR 047, 95 per cent c.i. 034 to 064). Core biopsy had equally high sensitivity of 86 per cent in both subtypes; however, FNAC was significantly less sensitive in both ILC (55 per cent; P=0003) and IDC (756 per cent; P=0006). Multivariable analysis revealed that cT3-4 status and symptomatic presentation were both significant in predicting nodal metastasis in patients with ILC and false-negative AUS findings (OR 377, 95 per cent c.i. 169 to 842, P=0001; and OR 192, 124 to 298, P=0003, respectively). ConclusionAUS is inferior in detecting axillary node metastasis in ILC compared with IDC. Women with cT3-4 lobular carcinoma may benefit from ultrasound-guided axillary biopsy regardless of the ultrasonographic appearance of the nodes. Less sensitive in lobular carcinoma

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据