European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology · 2018
The influence of breast cancer subtypes on axillary ultrasound accuracy: A retrospective single center analysis of 583 women.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Helfgott Ruth, Mittlböck Martina, Miesbauer Maria, Moinfar Farid, Haim Silke, Mascherbauer Maria, Schlagnitweit Paul, Heck Dietmar, Knauer Michael, Fitzal Florian
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Axillary ultrasound staging (AUS) is an important tool to guide clinical decisions in breast cancer therapy, especially regarding axillary surgery but also radiation therapy. It is unknown whether biological subtypes influence axillary staging using ultrasound (AUS).
METHOD: This is a retrospective single center analysis. All patients with breast cancer, a preoperative axillary ultrasound and a complete surgical axillary staging were included between 1999 and 2014, except patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). The results of the AUS were compared with final pathological results. Biological subtypes were identified by immunohistochemistry.
RESULTS: 583 women were included in the study. Sensitivity, Specificity, positive and negative predictive value for AUS were 39%, 96%, 91% and 83%. While sensitivity was significantly lower in Luminal A and B patients (25.0%; 39.8%) as compared to non Luminal breast cancer patients (TN 68.8%; Her2+ 71.4%; p = 0.0032), there were no significant differences between the groups with respect to specificity, PPV and NPV.
CONCLUSION: Solely regarding sensitivity of AUS, our study could show significant differences between biological subtypes of breast cancer with lower sensitivity in Luminal patients. While PPV was excellent, standing for a low overtreatment rate using AUS for clinical decision making, sensitivity was poor overall, comparable to the results of other studies.
METHOD: This is a retrospective single center analysis. All patients with breast cancer, a preoperative axillary ultrasound and a complete surgical axillary staging were included between 1999 and 2014, except patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). The results of the AUS were compared with final pathological results. Biological subtypes were identified by immunohistochemistry.
RESULTS: 583 women were included in the study. Sensitivity, Specificity, positive and negative predictive value for AUS were 39%, 96%, 91% and 83%. While sensitivity was significantly lower in Luminal A and B patients (25.0%; 39.8%) as compared to non Luminal breast cancer patients (TN 68.8%; Her2+ 71.4%; p = 0.0032), there were no significant differences between the groups with respect to specificity, PPV and NPV.
CONCLUSION: Solely regarding sensitivity of AUS, our study could show significant differences between biological subtypes of breast cancer with lower sensitivity in Luminal patients. While PPV was excellent, standing for a low overtreatment rate using AUS for clinical decision making, sensitivity was poor overall, comparable to the results of other studies.