Meta‐analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration and core needle biopsy in diagnosing axillary lymph node metastasis.
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
Meta‐analysis of the cumulative risk of endometrial malignancy and systematic review of endometrial surveillance in extended tamoxifen therapy. BJS 2018; 105: 1098-1106.
Authors: C. A. Fleming, H. M. Heneghan, D. O'Brien, D. P. McCartan, E. W. McDermott, R. S. Prichard et al.
Notes: Counselling of patients important
Breast‐conserving surgery followed by whole‐breast irradiation offers survival benefits over mastectomy without irradiation.
Authors: J. de Boniface, J. Frisell, L. Bergkvist, Y. Andersson
Notes: RT to lower axilla key?
Is axillary ultrasound imaging necessary for all patients with breast cancer?. BJS 2018; 105: 930-932.
Authors: M. Ahmed, M. Douek
Meta‐analysis of the oncological safety of autologous fat transfer after breast cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 1082-1097.
Authors: T. K. Krastev, S. J. Schop, J. Hommes, A. A. Piatkowski, E. M. Heuts, R. R. W. J. van der Hulst et al.
Notes: Lipofilling ok
Omission of surgery in older women with early breast cancer has an adverse impact on breast cancer‐specific survival.
Authors: S. E. Ward, P. D. Richards, J. L. Morgan, G. R. Holmes, J. W. Broggio, K. Collins et al.
Notes: Surgery should be first choice
Risk of recurrence and death in patients with breast cancer after delayed deep inferior epigastric perforator flap reconstruction.
Authors: H. Adam, A. C. Docherty Skogh, Å. Edsander Nord, I. Schultz, J. Gahm, P. Hall et al.
Notes: DIEP is safe
Predictors of complications after direct‐to‐implant breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix from a multicentre randomized clinical trial.
Authors: V. L. Negenborn, R. E. G. Dikmans, M. B. Bouman, H. A. H. Winters, J. W. R. Twisk, P. Q. Ruhé et al.
Notes: Not good for large breast
Population‐based study of the sensitivity of axillary ultrasound imaging in the preoperative staging of node‐positive invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. BJS 2018; 105: 987-995.
Authors: E. Morrow, A. Lannigan, J. Doughty, J. Litherland, J. Mansell, S. Stallard et al.
Notes: Less sensitive in lobular carcinoma
Routine histopathological examination after female‐to‐male gender‐confirming mastectomy. BJS 2018; 105: 885-892.
Authors: S. M. J. Van Renterghem, J. Van Dorpe, S. J. Monstrey, J. Defreyne, K. E. Y. Claes, M. Praet et al.
Notes: The case for
Meta‐analysis of neoadjuvant therapy and its impact in facilitating breast conservation in operable breast cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 469-481.
Authors: A. Karakatsanis, M. K. Tasoulis, F. Wärnberg, G. Nilsson, F. MacNeill
Notes: Still unnecessary mastectomies
Baseline factors predicting a response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with implications for non‐surgical management of triple‐negative breast cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 535-543.
Authors: R. F. D. van la Parra, A. B. Tadros, C. M. Checka, G. M. Rauch, A. Lucci, B. D. Smith et al.
Notes: Ductal carcinoma in situ and microcalcification important
Authors: Z. E. Winters, J. R. Benson