Sentinel lymph node detection using magnetic resonance lymphography with conventional gadolinium contrast agent in breast cancer: a preliminary clinical study

BMC Cancer

Chuanming Li²  Shan Meng²  Xinhua Yang¹  Daiquan Zhou²  Jian Wang²  Jiani Hu³ 

[1] Department of Breast Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, 30 Gaotanyan Road, Chongqing 400038, China

[2] Department of Radiology, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, 30 Gaotanyan Road, Chongqing 400038, China

[3] Department of Radiology, Wayne State University, Detroit 48331, MI, USA

关键词: Gadolinium;    Magnetic resonance lymphangiography;    Metastasis;    Lymph node;    Breast cancer;   

Others  :  1161047
DOI  :  10.1186/s12885-015-1255-4

 received in 2014-05-12, accepted in 2015-03-25,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping is the standard method for axillary lymph node staging in patients with breast cancer. Blue dye and radioisotopes are commonly used agents to localize SLNs, but both have several disadvantages. The purpose of this study was to evaluate magnetic resonance lymphography with a gadolinium-based contrast agent (Gd-MRL) in sentinel lymph node identification and metastasis detection in patients with breast cancer.

Methods

Sixty patients (mean age: 46.2 ± 8.8 years) with stage T1- 2 breast cancer and clinically negative axillary lymph nodes participated in this study. After 0.9 ml of contrast material and 0.1 ml of mepivacaine hydrochloride 1% were mixed and injected intradermally into the upper-outer periareolar areas, axillary lymph flow was tracked and sentinel lymph nodes were identified by Gd-MRL. After SLN biopsy and/or surgery, the efficacy of SLN identification and metastasis detection of Gd-MRL were examined.

Results

Ninety-six lymph nodes were identified by Gd-MRL as SLNs (M-SLN), and 135 lymph nodes were detected by blue dye-guided methods as SLNs (D-SLN). There was a strong correlation (P < 0.001) between the SLN numbers found by these two methods. Using blue dye-guided methods as the gold standard, the sensitivity of Gd-MRL was 95.65% and the false-negative rate was 4.3% for axillary lymphatic metastasis detection. With heterogeneous enhancement and enhancement defect as the diagnostic criteria, Gd-MRL gave a sensitivity of 89.29% and specificity of 89.66% in discriminating malignant from benign SLNs.

Conclusion

Gd-MRL offers a new method for SLN identification and metastasis detection in patients with breast cancer.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Li et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]American Cancer Society: Breast Cancer Facts and Figures 2003–2004. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA; 2003.
• [2]Wittekind C: TNM system: on the 7th edition of TNM classification of malignant tumors. Der Pathologe 2010, 31:331-332.
• [3]Rashid OM, Takabe K: Sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer: our technique and future directions in lymph node staging. J Nucl Med Radiat Ther 2012, S2:005.
• [4]Schwartz GF: Clinical practice guidelines for the use of axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy in carcinoma of the breast: current update. Breast J 2004, 10:85-88.
• [5]Mátrai Z, Bánhidy F, Téglás M, Kovács E, Sávolt A, Udvarhelyi N, et al.: Sentinel lymph node biopsy in pregnancy-associated breast cancer. Orv Hetil 2013, 154:1991-1997.
• [6]Johnson CB, Boneti C, Korourian S, Adkins L, Klimberg VS: Intraoperative injection of subareolar or dermal radioisotope results in predictable identification of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer. Ann Surg 2011, 254:612-618.
• [7]Borgstein PJ, Meijer S, Pijpers R: Intradermal blue dye to identify sentinel lymph-node in breast cancer. Lancet 1997, 384:149-157.
• [8]Zakaria S, Hoskin TL, Degnim AC: Safety and technical success of methylene blue dye for lymphatic mapping in breast cancer. Am J Surg 2008, 196:228-233.
• [9]Montgomery LL, Thorne AC, Van Zee KJ, Fey J, Heerdt AS, Gemignani M, et al.: Isosulfan blue dye reactions during sentinel lymph node mapping for breast cancer. Anesth Analg 2002, 95:385-388.
• [10]Dimakakos E, Koureas A, Koutoulidis V, Skiadas V, Katsenis K, Arkadopoulos N, et al.: Interstitial magnetic resonance lymphography: the clinical effectiveness of a new method. Lymphology 2008, 41:116-125.
• [11]Loo BW Jr, Draney MT, Sivanandan R, Ruehm SG, Pawlicki T, Xing L, et al.: Indirect MR lymphangiography of the head and neck using conventional gadolinium contrast: a pilot study in humans. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006, 66:462-468.
• [12]Ruehm SG, Corot C, Debatin JF: Interstitial MR lymphography with a conventional extracellular gadolinium-based agent: assessment in rabbits. Radiology 2001, 218:664-669.
• [13]Liu NF, Lu Q, Jiang ZH, Wang CG, Zhou JG: Anatomic and functional evaluation of the lymphatics and lymph nodes in diagnosis of lymphatic circulation disorders with contrast magnetic resonance lymphangiography. J Vasc Surg 2009, 49:980-987.
• [14]Narayanan P, Iyngkaran T, Sohaib SA, Reznek RH, Rockall AG: Magnetic resonance lymphography: a novel technique for lymph node assessment in gynecologic malignancies. Cancer Biomark 2009, 5:81-88.
• [15]Suga K, Yuan Y, Ogasawara N, Okada M, Matsunaga N: Localization of breast sentinel lymph nodes by MR lymphography with a conventional gadolinium contrast agent. Preliminary observations in dogs and humans. Acta Radiol 2003, 44:35-42.
• [16]Lu Q, Hua J, Kassir MM, Delproposto Z, Dai Y, Sun J, et al.: Imaging lymphatic system in breast cancer patients with magnetic resonance lymphangiography. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e69701.
• [17]Povoski SP, Young DC, Walker MJ, Carson WE, Yee LD, Agnese DM, et al.: Re-emphasizing the concept of adequacy of intraoperative assessment of the axillary sentinel lymph nodes for identifying nodal positivity during breast cancer surgery. World J Surg Oncol 2007, 5:18. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Henck ME, Simpson EL: Superiority of cod liver oil as a marker for lesions in MR imaging of the extremities. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993, 161:904-905.
• [19]Tien R, Newton TH, Dillon WP, McDermott MW: A simple method for spinal localization in MR imaging. Am J Neuroradiol 1989, 10:1232.
• [20]Mansel RE, Fallowfield L, Kissin M, Goyal A, Newcombe RG, Dixon JM, et al.: Randomized multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy versus standard axillary treatment in operable breast cancer: the ALMANAC Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006, 98:599-609.
• [21]Beenken SW, Urist MM, Zhang Y, Desmond R, Krontiras H, Medina H, et al.: Axillary lymph node status, but not tumor size, predicts locoregional recurrence and overall survival after mastectomy for breast cancer. Ann Surg 2003, 237:732-739.
• [22]Lale Atahan I, Yildiz F, Ozyigit G, Sari S, Gurkaynak M, Selek U, et al.: Percent positive axillary lymph node metastasis predicts survival in patients with non-metastatic breast cancer. Acta Oncol 2008, 47:232-238.
• [23]Kang T, Yi M, Hunt KK, Mittendorf EA, Babiera GV, Kuerer H, et al.: Does Blue Dye Contribute to Success of Sentinel Node Mapping for Breast Cancer? Ann Surg Oncol 2010, 17:S280-S285.
• [24]Linehan DC, Hill AD, Akhurst T, Yeung H, Yeh SD, Tran KN, et al.: Intradermal radiocolloid and intraparenchymal blue dye injection optimize sentinel node identification in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 1999, 6:450-454.
• [25]Zakaria S, Degnim AC, Kleer CG, Diehl KA, Cimmino VM, Chang AE, et al.: Sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer: how many nodes are enough? J Surg Oncol 2007, 96:554-559.
• [26]Shiozawa M, Kobayashi S, Sato Y, Maeshima H, Hozumi Y, Lefor AT, et al.: Magnetic resonance lymphography of sentinel lymph nodes in patients with breast cancer using superparamagnetic iron oxide: a feasibility study. Breast Cancer 2014, 21:394-401.
• [27]Tangoku A, Yamamoto S, Suga K, Ueda K, Nagashima Y, Hida M, et al.: Sentinel lymph node biopsy using computed tomography-lymphography in patients with breast cancer. Surgery 2004, 135:258-265.
• [28]Nakamura R, Nagashima T, Sakakibara M, Sangai T, Fujimoto H, Arai M, et al.: Breast-conserving surgery using supine magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast 2008, 17:245-251.
• [29]Kvistad KA, Rydland J, Smethurst HB, Lundgren S, Fjøsne HE, Haraldseth O: Axillary lymph node metastases in breast cancer: preoperative detection with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Eur Radiol 2000, 10:1464-1471.
• [30]Murray AD, Staff RT, Redpath TW, Gilbert FJ, Ah-See AK, Brookes JA, et al.: Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of the axilla in women with breast cancer: comparison with pathology of excised nodes. Br J Radiol 2002, 75:220-228.
• [31]Mortellaro VE, Marshall J, Singer L, Hochwald SN, Chang M, Copeland EM, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging for axillary staging in patients with breast cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009, 30:309-312.
• [32]Heusner TA, Kuemmel S, Koeninger A, Hamami ME, Hahn S, Quinsten A, et al.: Diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) compared to FDG PET/CT for whole-body breast cancer staging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010, 37:1077-1086.
• [33]He N, Xie C, Wei W, Pan C, Wang W, Lv N, et al.: A new, preoperative, MRI-based scoring system for diagnosing malignant axillary lymph nodes in women evaluated for breast cancer. Eur J Radiol 2012, 81:2602-2612.
• [34]Hansen NM, Grube B, Ye X, Turner RR, Brenner RJ, Sim MS, et al.: Impact of micrometastases in the sentinel node of patients with invasive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009, 27:4679-4684.