en
×

分享给微信好友或者朋友圈

使用微信“扫一扫”功能。
通讯作者:

栗翠英,E-mail:lynx_ko@163.com

中图分类号:R737.9

文献标识码:A

文章编号:1007-4368(2024)06-845-08

DOI:10.7655/NYDXBNSN231208

参考文献 1
MOUGALIAN S S,HERNANDEZ M,LEI X,et al.Ten ⁃ year outcomes of patients with breast cancer with cytologi⁃ cally confirmed axillary lymph node metastases and pathologic complete response after primary systemic che⁃ motherapy[J].JAMA Oncol,2016,2(4):508
参考文献 2
PEPPE A,WILSON R,POPE R,et al.The use of ultra⁃ sound in the clinical re⁃staging of the axilla after neoadju⁃ vant chemotherapy(NACT)[J].Breast,2017,35:104-108
参考文献 3
BOUGHEY J C.Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoad⁃ juvant chemotherapy in patients with node⁃positive breast cancer[J].JAMA,2013,310(14):1455
参考文献 4
VON MINCKWITZ G,UNTCH M,BLOHMER J,et al.Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various in⁃ trinsic breast cancer subtypes[J].J Clin Oncol,2012,30(15):1796-1804
参考文献 5
VIJAYARAGHAVAN G R,VEDANTHAM S,KATAOKA M,et al.The relevance of ultrasound imaging of suspicious axillary lymph nodes and fine ⁃ needle aspiration biopsy in the post⁃ACOSOG Z11 Era in early breast cancer[J].Acad Radiol,2017,24(3):308-315
参考文献 6
LIM G H,GUDI M,TEO S Y,et al.Would removal of all ultrasound abnormal metastatic lymph nodes without sen⁃ tinel lymph node biopsy be accurate in patients with breast cancer with neoadjuvant chemotherapy?[J].Oncol⁃ ogist,2020,25(11):e1621-e1627
参考文献 7
VILA J,MITTENDORF E A,FARANTE G,et al.Nomo⁃ grams for predicting axillary response to neoadjuvant che⁃ motherapy in clinically node⁃positive patients with breast cancer[J].Ann Surg Oncol,2016,23(11):3501-3509
参考文献 8
AMIN M B,GREENE F L,EDGE S B,et al.The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual:continuing to build a bridge from a population ⁃ based to a more“personal⁃ ized”approach to cancer staging[J].CA Cancer J Clin,2017,67(2):93-99
参考文献 9
HOLMES D,COLFRY A,CZERNIECKI B,et al.Perfor⁃ mance and practice guideline for the use of neoadjuvant systemic therapy in the management of breast cancer[J].Ann Surg Oncol,2015,22(10):3184-3190
参考文献 10
ANDERSSON C,JOHNSON A D,BENJAMIN E J,et al.70 ⁃ Year legacy of the framingham heart study[J].Nat Rev Cardiol,2019,16(11):687-698
参考文献 11
KUEHN T P,BAUERFEIND I M,FEHM T P,et al.Senti⁃ nel⁃lymph⁃node biopsy in patients with breast cancer be⁃ fore and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy(SENTINA):a prospective,multicentre cohort study[J].Lancet Oncol,2013,14(7):609-618
参考文献 12
ERSOY Y E,KADIOGLU H.Review of novel sentinel lymph node biopsy techniques in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy[J].Clin Breast Cancer,2018,18(4):e555-e559
参考文献 13
CAUDLE A S,YANG W T,KRISHNAMURTHY S,et al.Improved axillary evaluation following neoadjuvant thera⁃ py for patients with node⁃positive breast cancer using se⁃ lective evaluation of clipped nodes:implementation of tar⁃ geted axillary dissection[J].J Clin Oncol,2016,34(10):1072-1078
参考文献 14
BOUGHEY J C,BALLMAN K V,LE ⁃PETROSS H T,et al.Identification and resection of clipped node decreases the false ⁃ negative rate of sentinel lymph node surgery in patients presenting with node ⁃positive breast cancer(T0⁃ T4,N1 ⁃ N2)who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy[J].Ann Surge,2016,263(4):802-807
参考文献 15
TEE S R,DEVANE L A,EVOY D,et al.Meta⁃analysis of sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemothera⁃ py in patients with initial biopsy ⁃ proven node ⁃ positive breast cancer[J].Br J Surg,2018,105(12):1541-1552
参考文献 16
BOUGHEY J C,BALLMAN K V,HUNT K K,et al.Axil⁃ lary ultrasound after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and its impact on sentinel lymph node surgery:results from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z1071 Trial(Alliance)[J].J Clin Oncol,2015,33(30):3386-3393
参考文献 17
ZHANG K,ZHU Q,SHENG D,et al.A new model incor⁃ porating axillary ultrasound after neoadjuvant chemothera⁃ py to predict non⁃sentinel lymph node metastasis in inva⁃ sive breast cancer[J].Cancer Manag Res,2020,12:965-972
参考文献 18
KIM R,CHANG J M,LEE H,et al.Predicting axillary re⁃ sponse to neoadjuvant chemotherapy:breast MRI and US in patients with node⁃positive breast cancer[J].Radiolo⁃ gy,2019,293(1):49-57
参考文献 19
LALCHANDANI U R,SAHAI V,HERSBERGER K,et al.A radiologist’s guide to response evaluation criteria in solid tumors[J].Curr Probl Diagn Radiol,2019,48(6):576-585
参考文献 20
OULDAMER L,CHAS M,ARBION F,et al.Risk scoring system for predicting axillary response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in initially node ⁃ positive women with breast cancer[J].Surg Oncol,2018,27(2):158-165
目录contents

    摘要

    目的:联合超声和腋窝转移定位淋巴结,建立风险评估模型,预测临床淋巴结阳性(clinically LN-positive,cN+)乳腺癌患者新辅助治疗(neoadjuvant systemic therapy,NST)后腋窝病理完全缓解(pathologic complete response,pCR)的情况。方法:选取88例患者按7∶3的比例随机分配到测试组或验证组。所有患者于NST前,选取超声图像上最可疑且由病理活检证实为转移的淋巴结,在超声引导下置入1枚定位钛夹。对测试组进行单因素和多因素Logistic回归分析,根据多因素分析结果建立风险评分模型。结果:腋窝pCR率为48%(42/88)。以NST前激素受体状态、超声提示异常淋巴结的分级和分级的变化、定位淋巴结皮质厚度变化为独立因素,建立危险评分模型。在-13~-9分和1~10分时,测试组腋窝pCR率分别为100%和0。测试组和验证组的受试者工作特征曲线下面积分别为0.931(95%CI=0.868~0.994)和0.762(95%CI=0.576~0.947)。结论:基于超声和定位淋巴结的风险评分模型准确预测了cN+的乳腺癌患者NST后的腋窝淋巴结状态。危险评分-13~-9时腋窝淋巴结转移假阴性率为0%,这部分患者能够避免腋窝淋巴结清扫及一系列并发症。

    Abstract

    Objective:Combined ultrasound and axillary metastatic clipped lymph nodes was developed a model to predict the pathological complete response(pCR)of axillary lymph nodes in clinically lymph node - positive(cN +)breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant systemic therapy(NST). Methods:Eighty-eight patients were randomly assigned to the testing or validation set at a ratio of 7∶3. Before NST,the lymph nodes most suspicious on ultrasound images and confirmed as metastatic by pathological biopsy were selected and marked with a titanium clip under ultrasound guidance. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses of the testing set were performed. A risk score model was developed based on the results of multivariate analysis. Results:The axillary pCR rate was 48%(42/88). Hormone receptor status,N grade and changes in the number of abnormal lymph nodes were determined by ultrasonography,and changes in cortical thickness of the clipped lymph nodes were identified as independent factors and established the risk score model. In the score range of-13 to-9 and 1 to 10,the axillary pCR rate of the testing set was 100% and 0% , respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of the testing and validation sets were 0.931(95% CI:0.868- 0.994)and 0.762(95% CI:0.576-0.947),respectively. Conclusion:The risk score model based on ultrasound and clipped lymph nodes accurately predicte the axillary lymph node status of breast cancer patients with cN + after NST. When the risk score was between -13 and -9,the false-negative rate of axillary lymph node metastasis was 0%,allowing these patients to avoid axillary lymph node dissection and a series of complications.

  • 新辅助治疗(neoadjuvant systemic therapy,NST) 作为乳腺癌临床标准治疗方案之一,可以有效降低疾病分期,提高手术获益。既往研究显示,NST后腋窝病理完全缓解(pathologic complete response,pCR) 与患者生存获益显著相关。NST前为临床LN阳性 (clinically LN⁃positive,cN+)的乳腺癌患者在NST后能够变为临床淋巴结阴性(clinically LN ⁃negative, cN0),这部分患者可以接受前哨淋巴结活检(senti⁃ nel lymph node biopsy,SLNB),从而避免了腋窝淋巴结清扫(axillary lymph dissection,ALND)所带来的并发症[1]

  • 目前,NST 的疗效评估常规采用磁共振(mag⁃ netic resonance,MR)成像和超声,其中腋窝超声 (axillary ultrasonography,AUS)是一种简便有效的腋窝淋巴结评估方式[2-3]。然而,至今仍没有准确的方法能够筛选出 NST 后由 cN+转为 cN0 的乳腺癌患者。本研究的目的在于开发和验证一个基于临床病理和影像学特征的模型,以预测NST后腋窝淋巴结的状态,筛选出能够豁免ALND的患者。

  • 1 对象和方法

  • 1.1 对象

  • 所有入选患者均于2019年11月—2021年5月在南京医科大学附属第一医院接受 NST。排除标准:①NST前cN0的患者;②NST前后临床或影像学资料缺失;③未在本机构继续治疗;④治疗过程中疾病进展。最终入组患者88例,按7∶3的比例随机分配到测试组(n=62)或验证组(n=26)。每例患者至少接受8个周期的NST,每2轮治疗后进行1次超声评估,每4轮治疗后进行1次MR评估。该研究方案由南京医科大学附属第一医院伦理委员会批准,并按照赫尔辛基宣言中描述的人体受试者医学研究指南进行。所有患者在参与这项研究之前均签署了知情同意书。

  • 1.2 方法

  • 1.2.1 临床及病理特征

  • 本研究纳入的临床病理特征包括年龄、NST前的临床 T 分期、NST 前超声的 N 分级以及 Ki⁃67、激素受体(hormone receptor,HR)和人表皮生长因子受体 2(human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, HER2)表达情况。本研究中腋窝 pCR 的定义为术后病理诊断腋窝淋巴结不存在微转移和宏转移,若只存在孤立性转移淋巴结,则也可认定为腋窝达到了pCR[4]

  • 所有患者每 2 周 1 个疗程,共进行 8 个疗程的 NST。前 4 个疗程为密集表阿霉素和环磷酰胺治疗,后4个疗程依据每个患者的情况进行个性化治疗。从 NST 的第 5 个疗程开始,HER2 阳性患者每 21 d接受1次曲妥珠单抗治疗。所有变量在测试组和验证组之间的分布均一致。所有患者在 NST 后均行ALND。

  • 1.2.2 超声图像特征的获取和记录

  • 超声检查由同一医生完成,采用MyLabTM Twice 彩色多普勒超声仪器(EsaoteSpA,意大利),配备 4~13 MHz 的线阵探头。当淋巴结符合以下至少 1 个标准时,可判定为异常:①皮质厚度≥3 mm(弥漫性、局灶性或偏心性增厚);②淋巴门结构完全或部分消失;③彩色多普勒血流信号异常(非淋巴门型血流); ④淋巴结相互融合或被不规则癌结节所取代[5]。进行NST前,对超声提示最可疑的转移淋巴结进行细针穿刺,超声引导下在穿刺病理证实为转移的淋巴结中置入钛夹。每次检查时必须细致记录淋巴结的超声特征,包括异常淋巴结个数、定位淋巴结的形态、皮质厚度、淋巴门的存在状态以及血流分型。定位淋巴结的超声图像见图1。根据美国癌症联合会 (AJCC)指南,将超声提示的可疑腋窝淋巴结个数设定为 N 分级:①0 级(n=0);②1 级(1≤n≤3);③2 级 (4≤n≤9);④3 级(n≥10)[6-8]。本研究中,如果淋巴结的淋巴门结构完全消失,则皮质厚度等于定位淋巴结的短径值。

  • 此外,常规进行化疗疗效的彩色多普勒超声评估时,还需记录的特征包括原发肿块的大小(3 个径线均需记录)、原发病灶的形态、边缘、血流分级等[9],病灶血流参照Adler分级法分为0~Ⅲ级。

  • 1.3 统计学方法

  • 采用SPSS 25.0软件进行统计学分析。对测试组进行 Logistic 回归分析,单因素分析 P <0.2 的变量纳入多因素分析,多因素分析得出的独立影响因素(P <0.05)最终用于模型的建立。本研究中的风险评分模型是基于“Framingham Heart Study”的一系列心血管疾病风险评分所开发的[10]。将所有预测因素的风险得分相加,得到的总和即为该患者的最终风险得分。模型的预测能力用受试者工作特征曲线下的面积(area under curve,AUC)来量化。

  • 2 结果

  • 2.1 纳入病例的特征描述

  • 所有患者的临床和病理特征分析如表1所示。 88例患者Ki⁃67表达均>14%,为高增殖水平。88例患者全部进行了乳房切除术及ALND。在测试组和验证组中,T2(76%,67/88)和 N1(61%,54/88)是最常见的T分期和N分级。Miller⁃Payne分级1~3级者则认为化疗效果欠佳。53%(47/88)的患者 Miller⁃ Payne 分级为 4~5 级,腋窝 pCR 率为 49%(43/88)。根据肿瘤亚型分类,HR阴性和HER2阳性患者腋窝 pCR率分别为71%(30/42)和68%(26/38)。

  • 图1 定位淋巴结的超声图像

  • Figure1 Ultrasound images of clipped lymph nodes

  • 2.2 测试组腋窝淋巴结残留转移预测因素的Logis⁃ tic回归分析

  • 分析第 1 次和最后 1 次超声的评估参数,单因素分析包括12个特征(表2)。其中,病灶大小的变化采用实体瘤疗效评价标准(response evaluation cri⁃ teria in solid tumors,RECIST),病灶最长径的第1次与最后1次的变化率达到30%认定为化疗有效果。超声中病灶血流分级的变化、N分级的变化、定位淋巴结皮质厚度的变化均为第1次减去最后1次的差值。测试组的腋窝 pCR 率为 45%(28/62)。本研究中,年龄、临床 T 分期、超声评估病灶大小的变化、 NST前后定位淋巴结淋巴门的状态与腋窝淋巴结残留转移无明显相关性(P >0.2),NST 前超声的N分级、HR状态、HER2状态、NST后N分级的变化(即可疑淋巴结的个数变化)、定位淋巴结皮质厚度的变化均有差异(P <0.2)。腋窝 pCR 与 N1 级或 2 级、 HR阴性和HER2阳性相关。定位淋巴结皮质厚度变化>3 mm 和 N 分级变化>2 级的患者更容易达到 pCR 状态。将预测因素(P <0.2)纳入多因素分析 (表3)。临床特征中的HR状态与腋窝淋巴结残留转移密切相关(OR=22.1,P <0.05)。因为 HER2 的 P值为0.08,与0.05较为接近,所以本研究仍然将其纳入到最终的计算中。

  • 2.3 风险评分预测模型的建立与验证

  • 为每个独立预测因子选择基线参考值 (WiREF),并计算基线值与亚分类(Wij)之间的差值 D=β(WiREF-Wij)。皮质厚度的变化单位值定为 0.2 mm,计算公式B=0.2×3.614,为亚分类每变化1个分值的单位值。得分(Point=D/B)取四舍五入,风险模型得分由每个预测因素的得分之和获得(表3)。结果总分-13~10 分不等。把这些分数分成 6 个简化的分数组(表4)。预测风险评分模型的AUC值为 0.931(95% CI:0.868~0.994),验证集的 AUC 值为 0.762(95%CI:0.576~0.947),验证组模型的预测能力同样相对较好(图2)。

  • 3 讨论

  • 在临床实施新辅助治疗的早期阶段,淋巴结阳性的乳腺癌患者在 NST 后常规进行 ALND。然而,与 ALND 相关的并发症降低了患者术后的生活质量,因此,许多临床研究建议缩小腋窝淋巴结的切除范围,其中较为常见的技术便是SLNB[311-12]。既往研究报道,NST 后 SLNB 的假阴性率(false⁃nega⁃ tive rate,FNR)为 12.6%,高于临床可接受的阈值 (10%)。因此,相关研究人员引入了其他方法来降低 SLNB 的 FNR,例如化疗前在病理证实为转移的淋巴结中置入定位夹或向其内注射放射性核素的靶向腋窝清扫技术(TAD)[13-14]。TAD是近期引入的一种精准手术方式,用于切除置入定位钛夹的淋巴结和1个前哨淋巴结,该方法的FNR为2%[13]。由于化疗药物对腋窝淋巴组织造成的严重损害,NST后经常出现引流淋巴管的阻塞,因此NST后前哨淋巴结的识别变得较为困难,且TAD的核素定位在临床应用中也有一定的局限性[15]。先前的研究报道, AUS和SLNB联合使用可以将FNR有效降至9.8%,因此 AUS 被推荐用于常规评估接受 NST 的乳腺癌患者的腋窝淋巴结状态[16]。基于既往的钛夹定位淋巴结和AUS的实验研究,本研究开发了1个预测性风险评分模型,用以评估NST后乳腺癌患者的腋窝淋巴结状态,指导临床的精准治疗,避免不必要的ALND从而提高患者的生活质量。

  • 表1 患者特征

  • Table1 Patient characteristics

  • a:The suspicious axillary LNs were initially classified into four categories according to the AJCC guidelines:grade 0(n=0),grade1(1≤n≤3), grade 2(4≤n≤9),or grade 3(n≥10). b:Patients with Miller⁃Payne grade 5 and part of grade 4 were not assigned a histological grade due to insufficient tissue volume.

  • 结果表明,残留腋窝淋巴结的转移与超声上的 N 分级、HR 状态和 HER2 状态相关,与既往的研究结果一致[17]。病理上,HR阴性/HER2阳性的患者更有可能达到腋窝pCR,这可能与化疗药物和靶向治疗的应用有关。在本研究中,所有患者的 Ki⁃67 表达水平都较高,这可能是因为纳入的均为淋巴结转移阳性的患者。尽管Ki⁃67排除在本研究的最终计算之外,既往研究显示其表达情况与NST后的腋窝淋巴结状态是存在相关性的[18]

  • 每次进行超声评估时均需严格记录肿瘤病灶和定位淋巴结的各项特征参数。超声中的淋巴结分级和皮质厚度的变化与腋窝 pCR 密切相关。根据 RECIST 对乳腺癌原发病灶的评估[19],原发病灶最大径缩小>30%则可认定新辅助治疗有一定效果。本研究单因素分析结果显示,肿瘤大小的改变与NST后腋窝淋巴结残余转移情况无关。然而,既往有研究表明两者之间是存在联系的,且肿瘤大小的变化界值需>50%[1820]。由于本研究的病例数量有限,所以没有进一步分析肿瘤大小的相关性。后续研究可以进一步做深入分析,探讨肿块变化界值点的具体数值。

  • 表2 测试组基线特征的单因素分析

  • Table2 Univariable analysis of baseline characteristics of the testing set

  • a:Change to tumor size by US based on the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. b:Change to N grade by US based on the last ultrasound evaluation value minus the first evaluation value. c:Marginal blood flow;central blood flow;mixed blood flow(marginal + central blood flow). OR:odds ratio

  • 表3 测试组中预测因素的多因素分析

  • Table3 Multivariate analysis of predictive factors in the testing set

  • a:D=β(WiREF-Wij),representing the distance between the baseline value and every sub classification. b=0.2×3.614,representing the unit distance for every one point. B:Cortex thickness was calculated as the short diameter of the LN without a fatty hilum. CI:Confidente interval.

  • 表4 测试组和验证组中风险评分模型的性能

  • Table4 Performance of the risk score model with the testing and validation sets

  • FNR:false⁃negative rate.

  • 超声中显示可疑淋巴结个数N分级的最后一次评估结果减去第一次的评估结果,当该变化值≤0 时,将其作为该特征中的基线值(WiREF)赋值为 0。用相同的方法,将超声评估的定位淋巴结的皮质厚度变化≤3 mm作为基线值赋值为0。各亚分类的赋值随着这两个因素的变化值的增大而降低,表明这两个预测因素均为 NST 后腋窝淋巴结残留转移的保护因素,随着分值增大,则腋窝淋巴结残余转移的概率逐渐降低。与超声或MR的静态评估结果相比,这两项由化疗前后评估相减所得出的指标更准确地反映了化疗过程中疗效的动态变化。若根据既往研究判断,NST后超声形态异常的淋巴结 (如皮质厚度为 3.1 mm)通常被归入残余转移阳性的患者中,而本研究则发现,其中部分患者若定位淋巴结在NST后皮质厚度仍较厚,但其NST前后的皮质厚度变化>3 mm,则腋窝淋巴结有可能已经转阴,这样便大大降低了对腋窝淋巴结状态的高估。

  • 图2 测试组及验证组的的ROC曲线

  • Figure2 Receiver operating curves for the testing and validation sets

  • 本研究测试组和验证组的 AUC 分别为 0.931 (95%CI:0.868~0.994)和0.762(95%CI:0.576~0.947)。在以往的研究中,重点主要集中在模型的开发建立上,而忽略了模型的验证。本研究对所提出的模型进行了内部验证,结果表明该模型具有良好的预测能力。预测得分被简化为6个危险等级,简化分级为1级(得分为-13~-9分)的患者FNR为0,且FNR 随等级的增加而增加。而分级为 2~6 级的患者, FNR均>10%,这部分患者与既往的腋窝手术方式没有区别,仍需要进行SLNB或ALND。本研究中所有患者在 NST 后均行 ALND,同时也得到了定位淋巴结的病理结果,避免遗漏残留淋巴结转移的情况。

  • 本研究仍存在一些局限性。首先,样本量较小,研究结果可能会存在一定的偏倚。其次,模型的验证存在不足,需要进一步进行全面的内部和外部验证,以判断该模型的预测能力。再次,最终的评分中有部分得分存在病例缺失的情况,因此得分的划分可能不够细致。最后,本研究中的部分预测因素的统计偏于简化,仍需要做更深入的分析和探讨,例如原发病灶大小前后变化率的界值分析以及定位淋巴结皮质厚度变化能否更精准地探讨等。

  • 综上所述,本研究结合了AUS及钛夹定位淋巴结的特征,建立了风险评分模型,以准确预测cN+的乳腺癌患者 NST 后腋窝淋巴结的状态。根据该模型显示,得分为-13~-9分的乳腺癌患者NST后腋窝淋巴结可达到 pCR 状态。该模型能够有效帮助临床医生合理筛选出能够获免ALND的患者,从而避免了术后并发症,提高患者生活质量。

  • 参考文献

    • [1] MOUGALIAN S S,HERNANDEZ M,LEI X,et al.Ten ⁃ year outcomes of patients with breast cancer with cytologi⁃ cally confirmed axillary lymph node metastases and pathologic complete response after primary systemic che⁃ motherapy[J].JAMA Oncol,2016,2(4):508

    • [2] PEPPE A,WILSON R,POPE R,et al.The use of ultra⁃ sound in the clinical re⁃staging of the axilla after neoadju⁃ vant chemotherapy(NACT)[J].Breast,2017,35:104-108

    • [3] BOUGHEY J C.Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoad⁃ juvant chemotherapy in patients with node⁃positive breast cancer[J].JAMA,2013,310(14):1455

    • [4] VON MINCKWITZ G,UNTCH M,BLOHMER J,et al.Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various in⁃ trinsic breast cancer subtypes[J].J Clin Oncol,2012,30(15):1796-1804

    • [5] VIJAYARAGHAVAN G R,VEDANTHAM S,KATAOKA M,et al.The relevance of ultrasound imaging of suspicious axillary lymph nodes and fine ⁃ needle aspiration biopsy in the post⁃ACOSOG Z11 Era in early breast cancer[J].Acad Radiol,2017,24(3):308-315

    • [6] LIM G H,GUDI M,TEO S Y,et al.Would removal of all ultrasound abnormal metastatic lymph nodes without sen⁃ tinel lymph node biopsy be accurate in patients with breast cancer with neoadjuvant chemotherapy?[J].Oncol⁃ ogist,2020,25(11):e1621-e1627

    • [7] VILA J,MITTENDORF E A,FARANTE G,et al.Nomo⁃ grams for predicting axillary response to neoadjuvant che⁃ motherapy in clinically node⁃positive patients with breast cancer[J].Ann Surg Oncol,2016,23(11):3501-3509

    • [8] AMIN M B,GREENE F L,EDGE S B,et al.The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual:continuing to build a bridge from a population ⁃ based to a more“personal⁃ ized”approach to cancer staging[J].CA Cancer J Clin,2017,67(2):93-99

    • [9] HOLMES D,COLFRY A,CZERNIECKI B,et al.Perfor⁃ mance and practice guideline for the use of neoadjuvant systemic therapy in the management of breast cancer[J].Ann Surg Oncol,2015,22(10):3184-3190

    • [10] ANDERSSON C,JOHNSON A D,BENJAMIN E J,et al.70 ⁃ Year legacy of the framingham heart study[J].Nat Rev Cardiol,2019,16(11):687-698

    • [11] KUEHN T P,BAUERFEIND I M,FEHM T P,et al.Senti⁃ nel⁃lymph⁃node biopsy in patients with breast cancer be⁃ fore and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy(SENTINA):a prospective,multicentre cohort study[J].Lancet Oncol,2013,14(7):609-618

    • [12] ERSOY Y E,KADIOGLU H.Review of novel sentinel lymph node biopsy techniques in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy[J].Clin Breast Cancer,2018,18(4):e555-e559

    • [13] CAUDLE A S,YANG W T,KRISHNAMURTHY S,et al.Improved axillary evaluation following neoadjuvant thera⁃ py for patients with node⁃positive breast cancer using se⁃ lective evaluation of clipped nodes:implementation of tar⁃ geted axillary dissection[J].J Clin Oncol,2016,34(10):1072-1078

    • [14] BOUGHEY J C,BALLMAN K V,LE ⁃PETROSS H T,et al.Identification and resection of clipped node decreases the false ⁃ negative rate of sentinel lymph node surgery in patients presenting with node ⁃positive breast cancer(T0⁃ T4,N1 ⁃ N2)who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy[J].Ann Surge,2016,263(4):802-807

    • [15] TEE S R,DEVANE L A,EVOY D,et al.Meta⁃analysis of sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemothera⁃ py in patients with initial biopsy ⁃ proven node ⁃ positive breast cancer[J].Br J Surg,2018,105(12):1541-1552

    • [16] BOUGHEY J C,BALLMAN K V,HUNT K K,et al.Axil⁃ lary ultrasound after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and its impact on sentinel lymph node surgery:results from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z1071 Trial(Alliance)[J].J Clin Oncol,2015,33(30):3386-3393

    • [17] ZHANG K,ZHU Q,SHENG D,et al.A new model incor⁃ porating axillary ultrasound after neoadjuvant chemothera⁃ py to predict non⁃sentinel lymph node metastasis in inva⁃ sive breast cancer[J].Cancer Manag Res,2020,12:965-972

    • [18] KIM R,CHANG J M,LEE H,et al.Predicting axillary re⁃ sponse to neoadjuvant chemotherapy:breast MRI and US in patients with node⁃positive breast cancer[J].Radiolo⁃ gy,2019,293(1):49-57

    • [19] LALCHANDANI U R,SAHAI V,HERSBERGER K,et al.A radiologist’s guide to response evaluation criteria in solid tumors[J].Curr Probl Diagn Radiol,2019,48(6):576-585

    • [20] OULDAMER L,CHAS M,ARBION F,et al.Risk scoring system for predicting axillary response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in initially node ⁃ positive women with breast cancer[J].Surg Oncol,2018,27(2):158-165

  • 参考文献

    • [1] MOUGALIAN S S,HERNANDEZ M,LEI X,et al.Ten ⁃ year outcomes of patients with breast cancer with cytologi⁃ cally confirmed axillary lymph node metastases and pathologic complete response after primary systemic che⁃ motherapy[J].JAMA Oncol,2016,2(4):508

    • [2] PEPPE A,WILSON R,POPE R,et al.The use of ultra⁃ sound in the clinical re⁃staging of the axilla after neoadju⁃ vant chemotherapy(NACT)[J].Breast,2017,35:104-108

    • [3] BOUGHEY J C.Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoad⁃ juvant chemotherapy in patients with node⁃positive breast cancer[J].JAMA,2013,310(14):1455

    • [4] VON MINCKWITZ G,UNTCH M,BLOHMER J,et al.Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various in⁃ trinsic breast cancer subtypes[J].J Clin Oncol,2012,30(15):1796-1804

    • [5] VIJAYARAGHAVAN G R,VEDANTHAM S,KATAOKA M,et al.The relevance of ultrasound imaging of suspicious axillary lymph nodes and fine ⁃ needle aspiration biopsy in the post⁃ACOSOG Z11 Era in early breast cancer[J].Acad Radiol,2017,24(3):308-315

    • [6] LIM G H,GUDI M,TEO S Y,et al.Would removal of all ultrasound abnormal metastatic lymph nodes without sen⁃ tinel lymph node biopsy be accurate in patients with breast cancer with neoadjuvant chemotherapy?[J].Oncol⁃ ogist,2020,25(11):e1621-e1627

    • [7] VILA J,MITTENDORF E A,FARANTE G,et al.Nomo⁃ grams for predicting axillary response to neoadjuvant che⁃ motherapy in clinically node⁃positive patients with breast cancer[J].Ann Surg Oncol,2016,23(11):3501-3509

    • [8] AMIN M B,GREENE F L,EDGE S B,et al.The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual:continuing to build a bridge from a population ⁃ based to a more“personal⁃ ized”approach to cancer staging[J].CA Cancer J Clin,2017,67(2):93-99

    • [9] HOLMES D,COLFRY A,CZERNIECKI B,et al.Perfor⁃ mance and practice guideline for the use of neoadjuvant systemic therapy in the management of breast cancer[J].Ann Surg Oncol,2015,22(10):3184-3190

    • [10] ANDERSSON C,JOHNSON A D,BENJAMIN E J,et al.70 ⁃ Year legacy of the framingham heart study[J].Nat Rev Cardiol,2019,16(11):687-698

    • [11] KUEHN T P,BAUERFEIND I M,FEHM T P,et al.Senti⁃ nel⁃lymph⁃node biopsy in patients with breast cancer be⁃ fore and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy(SENTINA):a prospective,multicentre cohort study[J].Lancet Oncol,2013,14(7):609-618

    • [12] ERSOY Y E,KADIOGLU H.Review of novel sentinel lymph node biopsy techniques in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy[J].Clin Breast Cancer,2018,18(4):e555-e559

    • [13] CAUDLE A S,YANG W T,KRISHNAMURTHY S,et al.Improved axillary evaluation following neoadjuvant thera⁃ py for patients with node⁃positive breast cancer using se⁃ lective evaluation of clipped nodes:implementation of tar⁃ geted axillary dissection[J].J Clin Oncol,2016,34(10):1072-1078

    • [14] BOUGHEY J C,BALLMAN K V,LE ⁃PETROSS H T,et al.Identification and resection of clipped node decreases the false ⁃ negative rate of sentinel lymph node surgery in patients presenting with node ⁃positive breast cancer(T0⁃ T4,N1 ⁃ N2)who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy[J].Ann Surge,2016,263(4):802-807

    • [15] TEE S R,DEVANE L A,EVOY D,et al.Meta⁃analysis of sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemothera⁃ py in patients with initial biopsy ⁃ proven node ⁃ positive breast cancer[J].Br J Surg,2018,105(12):1541-1552

    • [16] BOUGHEY J C,BALLMAN K V,HUNT K K,et al.Axil⁃ lary ultrasound after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and its impact on sentinel lymph node surgery:results from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z1071 Trial(Alliance)[J].J Clin Oncol,2015,33(30):3386-3393

    • [17] ZHANG K,ZHU Q,SHENG D,et al.A new model incor⁃ porating axillary ultrasound after neoadjuvant chemothera⁃ py to predict non⁃sentinel lymph node metastasis in inva⁃ sive breast cancer[J].Cancer Manag Res,2020,12:965-972

    • [18] KIM R,CHANG J M,LEE H,et al.Predicting axillary re⁃ sponse to neoadjuvant chemotherapy:breast MRI and US in patients with node⁃positive breast cancer[J].Radiolo⁃ gy,2019,293(1):49-57

    • [19] LALCHANDANI U R,SAHAI V,HERSBERGER K,et al.A radiologist’s guide to response evaluation criteria in solid tumors[J].Curr Probl Diagn Radiol,2019,48(6):576-585

    • [20] OULDAMER L,CHAS M,ARBION F,et al.Risk scoring system for predicting axillary response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in initially node ⁃ positive women with breast cancer[J].Surg Oncol,2018,27(2):158-165