{"title":"Comparison of MRI and Ultrasound for Evaluation of Axillary Lymph Node Status in Early Breast Cancer.","authors":"Ling Li, Jing Zhao, Fangxuan Li, Zhanyu Pan","doi":"10.2147/CMAR.S482484","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in evaluating axillary lymph nodes (ALNs) status in breast cancer patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed 590 female breast cancer patients who had undergone both ultrasound and MRI to assess ALNs prior to any invasive procedures. Using pathological results as the standard, we compared the diagnostic performance of the two imaging modalities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For differentiating between malignancy and benign ALNs, the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ultrasound were 68.98%, 38.14%, 86.67%, 62.12% and 70.96%, respectively. MRI demonstrated corresponding values of 72.03%, 38.60%, 91.20%, 71.55% and 72.15%. In assessing the burden status of ALNs (high vs low), ultrasound yielded values of 78.47%, 52.75%, 83.17%, 36.36% and 90.61%, while MRI showed corresponding values of 81.19%, 52.75%, 86.37%, 41.38% and 90.93%. There were no statistically significant differences between the two imaging modalities in their ability to evaluate ALN malignancy or burden status.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both ultrasound and MRI offer comparable value in assessing ALN status. Whether evaluating for metastatic involvement or determining ALN burden, it may not be necessary for patients to undergo both imaging tests.</p>","PeriodicalId":9479,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Management and Research","volume":"16 ","pages":"1685-1692"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11613698/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Management and Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S482484","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in evaluating axillary lymph nodes (ALNs) status in breast cancer patients.
Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 590 female breast cancer patients who had undergone both ultrasound and MRI to assess ALNs prior to any invasive procedures. Using pathological results as the standard, we compared the diagnostic performance of the two imaging modalities.
Results: For differentiating between malignancy and benign ALNs, the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ultrasound were 68.98%, 38.14%, 86.67%, 62.12% and 70.96%, respectively. MRI demonstrated corresponding values of 72.03%, 38.60%, 91.20%, 71.55% and 72.15%. In assessing the burden status of ALNs (high vs low), ultrasound yielded values of 78.47%, 52.75%, 83.17%, 36.36% and 90.61%, while MRI showed corresponding values of 81.19%, 52.75%, 86.37%, 41.38% and 90.93%. There were no statistically significant differences between the two imaging modalities in their ability to evaluate ALN malignancy or burden status.
Conclusion: Both ultrasound and MRI offer comparable value in assessing ALN status. Whether evaluating for metastatic involvement or determining ALN burden, it may not be necessary for patients to undergo both imaging tests.
期刊介绍:
Cancer Management and Research is an international, peer reviewed, open access journal focusing on cancer research and the optimal use of preventative and integrated treatment interventions to achieve improved outcomes, enhanced survival, and quality of life for cancer patients. Specific topics covered in the journal include:
◦Epidemiology, detection and screening
◦Cellular research and biomarkers
◦Identification of biotargets and agents with novel mechanisms of action
◦Optimal clinical use of existing anticancer agents, including combination therapies
◦Radiation and surgery
◦Palliative care
◦Patient adherence, quality of life, satisfaction
The journal welcomes submitted papers covering original research, basic science, clinical & epidemiological studies, reviews & evaluations, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary, and case series that shed novel insights on a disease or disease subtype.