Meta‐analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration and core needle biopsy in diagnosing axillary lymph node metastasis. BJS 2018; 105: 1244-1253.
Published: 4th July 2018
Authors: I. Balasubramanian, C. A. Fleming, M. A. Corrigan, H. P. Redmond, M. J. Kerin, A. J. Lowery et al.
Axillary lymph node status remains a significant prognostic indicator in breast cancer. Here, the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration (US‐FNA) and ultrasound‐guided core needle biopsy (US‐CNB) in axillary staging was compared.
A comprehensive search was undertaken of all published studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of US‐CNB and US‐FNA of axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer. Studies were included if raw data were available on the diagnostic performance of both US‐FNA and US‐CNB, and compared with final histology results. Relevant data were extracted from each study for systematic review. Meta‐analysis was performed using a random‐effects model. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of US‐FNA and US‐CNB were obtained using a bivariable model. Summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) graphs were created to confirm diagnostic accuracy.
Data on a total of 1353 patients from six studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. US‐CNB was superior to US‐FNA in diagnosing axillary nodal metastases: sensitivity 88 (95 per cent c.i. 84 to 91) versus 74 (70 to 78) per cent respectively. Both US‐CNB and US‐FNA had a high specificity of 100 per cent. Reported complication rates were significantly higher for US‐CNB compared with US‐FNA (7·1 versus 1·3 per cent; P < 0·001). Conversely, the requirement for repeat diagnostic procedures was significantly greater for US‐FNA (4·0 versus 0·5 per cent; P < 0·001).
US‐CNB is a superior diagnostic technique to US‐FNA for axillary staging in breast cancer.Full text
You may also be interested in
Prognostic impact of repeat sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence. BJS 2019; 106: 574-585.
Authors: I. G. M. Poodt, G. Vugts, R. J. Schipper, R. M. H. Roumen, H. J. T. Rutten, A. J. G. Maaskant‐Braat et al.
Notes: No impact
Effect of preoperative injection of superparamagnetic iron oxide particles on rates of sentinel lymph node dissection in women undergoing surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (SentiNot study). BJS 2019; 106: 720-728.
Authors: A. Karakatsanis, A.‐F. Hersi, L. Pistiolis, R. Olofsson Bagge, P. M. Lykoudis, S. Eriksson et al.
Short‐term cost‐effectiveness of one‐stage implant‐based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix versus two‐stage expander‐implant reconstruction from a multicentre randomized clinical trial. BJS 2019; 106: 586-595.
Authors: V. L. Negenborn, J. M. Smit, R. E. G. Dikmans, H. A. H. Winters, J. W. R. Twisk, P. Q. Ruhé et al.
Autologous fat transplantation alters gene expression patterns related to inflammation and hypoxia in the irradiated human breast. BJS 2019; 106: 563-573.
Authors: A. Lindegren, I. Schultz, I. Sinha, L. Cheung, A. A. Khan, M. Tekle et al.
Notes: Effects on fibrosis after radiotherapy
Authors: F. Magnoni, G. Massari, G. Santomauro, V. Bagnardi, E. Pagan, G. Peruzzotti et al.
Authors: Y. Grant, R. Al‐Khudairi, E. St John, M. Barschkett, D. Cunningham, R. Al‐Mufti et al.
Notes: Reoperations expensive
Meta‐analysis of sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with initial biopsy‐proven node‐positive breast cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 1541-1552.
Authors: S. R. Tee, L. A. Devane, D. Evoy, J. Rothwell, J. Geraghty, R. S. Prichard et al.
Notes: In selected patients using dual tracer
Feasibility study of combined dynamic imaging and lymphaticovenous anastomosis surgery for breast cancer‐related lymphoedema. BJS 2019; 106: 100-110.
Authors: A. A. Khan, I. Hernan, J. A. Adamthwaite, K. W. D. Ramsey
Notes: Effective in selected patients
Randomized clinical trial
INTEND II randomized clinical trial of intraoperative duct endoscopy in pathological nipple discharge. BJS 2018; 105: 1583-1590.
Authors: G. Gui, A. Agusti, D. Twelves, S. Tang, M. Kabir, C. Montgomery et al.
Notes: Identifies causative lesion
Aesthetic outcome following breast‐conserving surgery assessed by three evaluation modalities in relation to health‐related quality of life. BJS 2019; 106: 90-99.
Authors: C. Dahlbäck, A. Ringberg, J. Manjer
Notes: Better methods needed
Current practice and short‐term outcomes of therapeutic mammaplasty in the international TeaM multicentre prospective cohort study. BJS 2018; 105: 1778-1792.
Authors: R. L. O'Connell, E. Baker, A. Trickey, T. Rattay, L. Whisker, R. D. Macmillan et al.
Notes: Reduces mastectomy rates
Nationwide population‐based study of trends and regional variation in breast‐conserving treatment for breast cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 1768-1777.
Authors: M. C. van Maaren, L. J. A. Strobbe, L. B. Koppert, P. M. P. Poortmans, S. Siesling
Notes: Regional differences remain