Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 13, Issue 12, pp 1545–1552 | Cite as

Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Clinically Negative Lymph Nodes Versus Sentinel Node Mapping in Patients at High Risk for Axillary Metastasis

  • Joseph T. Davis
  • Yolanda M. Brill
  • Sam Simmons
  • Brant C. Sachleben
  • Michael L. Cibull
  • Patrick McGrath
  • Heather Wright
  • Edward Romond
  • Molly Hester
  • Angela Moore
  • Luis M. Samayoa
Article

Abstract

Background

Sonographically directed fine-needle aspiration is a less invasive and less costly alternative to sentinel node (SN) mapping in breast cancer patients at high risk for metastatic disease but with clinically negative axillae.

Methods

Radiographic, cytological, and histological diagnostic data on breast primary tumors from 114 consecutive SN candidates were prospectively assessed for clinicopathologic variables associated with an increased incidence of axillary metastases. Patients in whom these variables were identified underwent sonographic examination of their axillae followed by fine-needle aspiration when abnormal nodes were detected. SN mapping was performed in patients with normal axillary sonogram results or negative cytological results. Patients with positive cytological results proceeded to complete axillary dissection. Final axillary histological outcomes from patients not meeting the high-risk criteria were recorded. Additionally, a cost analysis was performed in which the costs of ultrasonography and ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of the axilla were compared with those of SN mapping.

Results

According to our selection criteria, a third of the patients with clinically negative axillae (37 of 114; 32%) were considered at high risk for axillary metastases. Fifty-nine percent of these patients (22 of 37) had metastatic disease on final histological analysis. Forty percent (15 of 37) of high-risk patients were spared SN mapping, with a reduction in health care costs of 20% in this patient population. Eighty-seven percent of patients not meeting high-risk criteria were SN negative.

Conclusions

This study suggests that in patients at increased risk for axillary metastases, the use of sonographic evaluation of the axilla in combination with fine-needle aspiration is not only clinically justified, but also cost-effective.

Keywords

Ultrasound-guided cytology Breast cancer High-risk patients Sentinel node 

References

  1. 1.
    Kim T, Giuliano AE, Lyman GH. Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast carcinoma: a metaanalysis. Cancer 2006;106:4–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hill AD, Tran KN, Akhurst T, et al. Lessons learned from 500 cases of lymphatic mapping for breast cancer. Ann Surg 1999;229:528–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Viale G, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy and axillary dissection in breast cancer: results in a large series. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:368–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Winchester DJ, Sener SF, Winchester DP, et al. Sentinel lymphadenectomy for breast cancer: experience with 180 consecutive patients—efficacy of filtered technetium 99m sulphur colloid with overnight migration time. J Am Coll Surg 1999;188:597–603PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tanis PJ, van Sandick JW, Nieweg OE, et al. The hidden sentinel node in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:305–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rutledge H, Davis J, Chiu R, et al. Sentinel node micrometastasis in breast carcinoma may not be an indication for complete axillary dissection. Mod Pathol 2005;18:762–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weiser MR, Montgomery LL, Tan LK, et al. Lymphovascular invasion enhances the prediction of non-sentinel node metastases in breast cancer patients with positive sentinel nodes. Ann Surg Oncol 2001;8:145–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Degnim AC, Griffith KA, Sabel MS, et al. Clinicopathologic features of metastasis in nonsentinel lymph nodes of breast carcinoma patients. Cancer 2003;98:2307–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abdessalam SF, Zervos EE, Prasad M, et al. Predictors of positive axillary lymph nodes after sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer. Am J Surg 2001;182:316–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bedrosian I, Bedi D, Kuerer HM, et al. Impact of clinicopathological factors on sensitivity of axillary ultrasonography in the detection of axillary nodal metastases in patients with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10:1025–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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;21:270–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Damera A, Evans AJ, Cornford EJ, et al. Diagnosis of axillary nodal metastases by ultrasound-guided core biopsy in primary operable breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2003;89:1310–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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;86:1459–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deurloo EE, Tanis PJ, Gilhuijs KG, et al. Reduction in the number of sentinel lymph node procedures by preoperative ultrasonography of the axilla in breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2003;39:1068–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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;95:982–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vaidya JS, Vyas JJ, Thakur MH, et al. Role of ultrasonography to detect axillary node involvement in operable breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 1996;22:140–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Verbanck J, Vandewiele I, De Winter H, et al. Value of axillary ultrasonography and sonographically guided puncture of axillary nodes: a prospective study in 144 consecutive patients. J Clin Ultrasound 1997;25:53–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yang WT, Ahuja A, Tang A, et al. High resolution sonographic detection of axillary lymph node metastases in breast cancer. J Ultrasound Med 1996;15:241–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Rijk MC, Deurloo EE, Nieweg OE, et al. Ultrasonography and fine-needle aspiration cytology can spare breast cancer patients unnecessary sentinel lymph node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 2006;13:31–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Elston C. Grading of invasive carcinoma of the breast. (1987) In: Page D, Anderson T, eds. Diagnostic Histopathology of the Breast. New York: Churchill Livingston, pp 300–11Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stavros T. (2003) Evaluation of regional lymph nodes in breast cancer patients. In: Breast Ultrasound. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp 855–64Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cox CE, Yeatman T, Salud CJ, Bass SS. Significance of sentinel node micrometastasis. Cancer Control 1999;6:601–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    den Bakker MA, van Weeszenberg A, de Kanter AY, et al. Non-sentinel lymph node involvement in patients with breast cancer and sentinel node micrometastasis; too early to abandon axillary clearance. J Clin Pathol 2002;55:932–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oruwari JU, Chung MA, Koelliker S, et al. Axillary staging using ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in locally advanced breast cancer. Am J Surg 2002;184:307–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Khan A, Sabel MS, Nees A, et al. Comprehensive axillary evaluation in neoadjuvant chemotherapy patients with ultrasonography and sentinel lymph node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 2005;12:697–704PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rouzier R, Extra JM, Klijanienko J, et al. Incidence and prognostic significance of complete axillary downstaging after primary chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with T1 to T3 tumors and cytologically proven axillary metastatic lymph nodes. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:1304–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph T. Davis
    • 1
  • Yolanda M. Brill
    • 1
  • Sam Simmons
    • 1
  • Brant C. Sachleben
    • 1
  • Michael L. Cibull
    • 1
  • Patrick McGrath
    • 2
  • Heather Wright
    • 2
  • Edward Romond
    • 3
  • Molly Hester
    • 4
  • Angela Moore
    • 4
  • Luis M. Samayoa
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of PathologyUniversity of Kentucky Breast Cancer CenterMS #157Kentucky
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Kentucky Breast Cancer CenterLexington,Kentucky
  3. 3.Department of Hematology and OncologyUniversity of Kentucky Breast Cancer CenterLexingtonKentucky
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Kentucky Breast Cancer CenterLexingtonKentucky
  5. 5.Department of PathologyVeteran Administration Medical CenterLexingtonKentucky

Personalised recommendations