Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 784–791 | Cite as

Intraoperative Ultrasound-Guided Excision of Axillary Clip in Patients with Node-Positive Breast Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Therapy (ILINA Trial)

A New Tool to Guide the Excision of the Clipped Node After Neoadjuvant Treatment
  • Christian Siso
  • Juan de Torres
  • Antonio Esgueva-Colmenarejo
  • Martin Espinosa-Bravo
  • Neus Rus
  • Octavi Cordoba
  • Roberto Rodriguez
  • Vicente Peg
  • Isabel T. RubioEmail author
Breast Oncology



The accuracy of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) has been improved with the placement of a clip in the positive node prior to treatment. Several methods have been described for clipped node excision during SLNB after NAT. We assessed the feasibility of intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS)-guided excision of the clipped node during SLNB and investigated whether the accuracy of SLNB is improved.


After approval by the Institutional Ethics Committee, all breast cancer patients undergoing NAT had an US-visible clip placed in the positive node. The ILINA trial consisted of IOUS-guided excision of the clipped node along with SLNB and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND).


Forty-six patients had a clip placed in the positive node. In two (4.3%) cases, the clip could not be seen prior to surgery and the patient underwent ALND; however, the clipped node was successfully removed by IOUS-guided excision in 44 patients. Thirty-five patients (79.5%) underwent SLNB along with IOUS-guided excision of the clipped node and ALND, and were subsequently included in the ILINA trial. Nine patients were not included (five patients with SLNB only and four patients with ALND without SLNB). SLNB matched the clipped node in 27 (77%) patients. The false negative rate for the ILINA protocol was 4.1% (95% confidence interval 0.1–21.1%).


IOUS-guided excision of the axillary clipped node after NAT was feasible, safe, and successful in 100% of cases. The ILINA trial is accurate in predicting axillary nodal status after NAT.



All authors declare that they have no potential conflicts of interest to declare.


  1. 1.
    Gralow JR, Burstein HJ, Wood W, et al. Preoperative therapy in invasive breast cancer: pathologic assessment and systemic therapy issues in operable disease. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(5):814–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaufmann M, Hortobagyi GN, Goldhirsch A, et al. Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: an update. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(12):1940–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Deurzen CH, Vriens BE, Tjan-Heijnen VC, et al. Accuracy of sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: a systematic review. Eur J Cancer 2009;45(18):3124–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Xing Y, Foy M, Cox DD, Kuerer HM, Hunt KK, Cormier JN. Meta-analysis of sentinel lymph node biopsy after preoperative chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2006;93(5):539–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dominici LS, Negron Gonzalez VM, Buzdar AU, et al. Cytologically proven axillary lymph node metastases are eradicated in patients receiving preoperative chemotherapy with concurrent trastuzumab for HER2-positive breast cancer. Cancer 2010;116(12):2884–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuerer HM, Sahin AA, Hunt KK, et al. Incidence and impact of documented eradication of breast cancer axillary lymph node metastases before surgery in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg. 1999;230(1):72–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA, et al. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer: the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) clinical trial. JAMA 2013;310(14):1455–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boileau JF, Poirier B, Basik M, et al. Sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer: the SN FNAC study. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(3):258–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chagpar AB, Middleton LP, Sahin AA, et al. Accuracy of physical examination, ultrasonography, and mammography in predicting residual pathologic tumor size in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg. 2006;243(2):257–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yuan Y, Chen XS, Liu SY, Shen KW. Accuracy of MRI in prediction of pathologic complete remission in breast cancer after preoperative therapy: a meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(1):260–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    You S, Kang DK, Jung YS, An YS, Jeon GS, Kim TH. Evaluation of lymph node status after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: comparison of diagnostic performance of ultrasound, MRI and (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT. Br J Radiol. 2015;88(1052):20150143.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuehn T, Bauerfeind I, Fehm T, et al. Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy in patients with breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (SENTINA): a prospective, multicentre cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):609–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mittendorf EA, Caudle AS, Yang W, et al. Implementation of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group z1071 trial data in clinical practice: is there a way forward for sentinel lymph node dissection in clinically node-positive breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy? Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(8):2468–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Donker M, Straver ME, Wesseling J, et al. Marking axillary lymph nodes with radioactive iodine seeds for axillary staging after neoadjuvant systemic treatment in breast cancer patients: the MARI procedure. Ann Surg. 2015;261(2):378–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Caudle AS, Yang WT, Krishnamurthy S, et al. Improved axillary evaluation following neoadjuvant therapy for patients with node-positive breast cancer using selective evaluation of clipped nodes: implementation of targeted axillary dissection. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(10):1072–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Choy N, Lipson J, Porter C, et al. Initial results with preoperative tattooing of biopsied axillary lymph nodes and correlation to sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(2):377–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilson LL, Giuliano AE. Sentinel lymph node mapping for primary breast cancer. Curr Oncol Rep. 2005;7(1):12–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rubio IT, Esgueva-Colmenarejo A, Espinosa-Bravo M, Salazar JP, Miranda I, Peg V. Intraoperative ultrasound-guided lumpectomy versus mammographic wire localization for breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant treatment. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(1):38–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compto CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer; 2010.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rahusen FD, Bremers AJ, Fabry HF, van Amerongen AH, Boom RP, Meijer S. Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast cancer versus wire-guided resection: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9(10):994–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Krekel NM, Haloua MH, Lopes Cardozo AM, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance for palpable breast cancer excision (COBALT trial): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(1):48–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ramos M, Diaz JC, Ramos T, et al. Ultrasound-guided excision combined with intraoperative assessment of gross macroscopic margins decreases the rate of reoperations for non-palpable invasive breast cancer. Breast 2013;22(4):520–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    James TA, Harlow S, Sheehey-Jones J, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound versus mammographic needle localization for ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(5):1164–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Krekel NM, Lopes Cardozo AM, Muller S, Bergers E, Meijer S, van den Tol MP. Optimising surgical accuracy in palpable breast cancer with intra-operative breast ultrasound: feasibility and surgeons’ learning curve. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37(12):1044–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nguyen TT, Hieken TJ, Glazebrook KN et al. Localizing the clipped node in patients with node positive breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: early learning experience and challenges. Ann Surg Oncol. (Epub 1 Aug 2017)

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Siso
    • 1
  • Juan de Torres
    • 2
  • Antonio Esgueva-Colmenarejo
    • 1
    • 3
  • Martin Espinosa-Bravo
    • 1
    • 3
  • Neus Rus
    • 2
  • Octavi Cordoba
    • 1
    • 3
  • Roberto Rodriguez
    • 1
    • 3
  • Vicente Peg
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Isabel T. Rubio
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Breast Surgical Oncology, Breast Cancer CenterHospital Universitario Vall d’HebronBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Breast Imaging Unit, Department of RadiologyHospital Universitario Vall d’HebronBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Universitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.Department of PathologyHospital Universitario Vall d’HebronBarcelonaSpain
  5. 5.Spanish Biomedical Research Network Centre in Oncology (CIBERONC)BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations