Diagnostic Value of Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound for Sentinel Lymph Node Metastasis in Breast Cancer: an Updated Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal Breast Cancer Res Treat

Specialty Oncology

Date 2023 Jul 27

PMID 37500963

Authors

Xiao Liu

Meihuan Wang

Qian Wang

Huawei Zhang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The status of sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) is an important factor in determining the stage of breast cancer (BC) and the surgical procedure, and also a biomarker of the BC prognosis. This meta-analysis was performed to investigate the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for SLN metastasis.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted for relevant articles published in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, OVID databases, and Cochrane Library from inception to March 2023. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (PLR; NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operator characteristic (SROC) curve to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of CEUS in SLN metastasis. Subgroup analysis was also performed to investigate potential sources of heterogeneity.

Results: A total of 12 studies with 1525 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of CEUS in the diagnosis of SLN metastasis were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.84-0.95) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.78-0.92). The PLR, NLR, and DOR were 6.51 (95% CI: 4.09-10.36), 0.11 (95% CI: 0.07-0.18), and 59.43 (95% CI: 33.27-106.17), respectively, and the area under the SROC curve was determined to be 0.95 (95%CI: 0.92-0.96), all showing excellent diagnostic value. In the subgroup analysis, percutaneous CEUS was more sensitive than intravenous CEUS in the diagnosis of SLN metastases (0.92 versus 0.82, p < 0.05).

Conclusion: CEUS, especially percutaneous CEUS, is a reliable imaging technique for diagnosing SLN metastasis and providing important information in the stage management of breast cancer.

Citing Articles

Axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer: from historical axillary surgery to updated advances in the preoperative diagnosis and axillary management.

Wu T, Long Q, Zeng L, Zhu J, Gao H, Deng Y BMC Surg. 2025; 25(1):81.

PMID: 40016717 PMC: 11869450. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-025-02802-2.

Early Warning of Axillary Lymph Node Metastasis in Breast Cancer Patients Using Multi-Omics Signature: A Machine Learning-Based Retrospective Study.

Ke Z, Shen L, Shao J Int J Gen Med. 2024; 17:6101-6114.

PMID: 39687219 PMC: 11648545. DOI: 10.2147/IJGM.S499238.

[Ultrasound Multimodality Examination Improves the Diagnostic Efficiency of Non-Mass-Like Breast Lesions].

Wang H, Lu L, Zhang H, Wan X, He Y, Luo H Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2024; 55(5):1240-1246.

PMID: 39507984 PMC: 11536232. DOI: 10.12182/20240960206.

The diagnostic value of two-dimensional ultrasound score, contrast-enhanced ultrasound score and ultrasound elastography score in prostate cancer.

Liu B, He H, Zhao Y, Cui Y, Wang J Transl Androl Urol. 2024; 13(9):1805-1813.

PMID: 39434725 PMC: 11491199. DOI: 10.21037/tau-24-137.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound image sequences based on radiomics analysis for diagnosis of metastatic cervical lymph nodes from thyroid cancer.

Zhao H, Yin H, Li M, Zhang H, He Y, Luo H Gland Surg. 2024; 13(8):1437-1447.

PMID: 39282044 PMC: 11399000. DOI: 10.21037/gs-24-98.

References

Yang H, Pawitan Y, He W, Eriksson L, Holowko N, Hall P . Disease trajectories and mortality among women diagnosed with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2019; 21(1):95. PMC: 6698019. DOI: 10.1186/s13058-019-1181-5. View

Dhankhar R, Vyas S, Jain A, Arora S, Rath G, Goyal A . Advances in novel drug delivery strategies for breast cancer therapy. Artif Cells Blood Substit Immobil Biotechnol. 2010; 38(5):230-49. DOI: 10.3109/10731199.2010.494578. View

Qiao J, Li J, Wang L, Guo X, Bian X, Lu Z . Predictive risk factors for sentinel lymph node metastasis using preoperative contrast-enhanced ultrasound in early-stage breast cancer patients. Gland Surg. 2021; 10(2):761-769. PMC: 7944082. DOI: 10.21037/gs-20-867. View

Cserni G, Maguire A, Bianchi S, Ryska A, Kovacs A . Sentinel lymph node assessment in breast cancer-an update on current recommendations. Virchows Arch. 2021; 480(1):95-107. DOI: 10.1007/s00428-021-03128-z. View

Lyman G, Somerfield M, Bosserman L, Perkins C, Weaver D, Giuliano A . Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2016; 35(5):561-564. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.0947. View

Magnoni F, Galimberti V, Corso G, Intra M, Sacchini V, Veronesi P . Axillary surgery in breast cancer: An updated historical perspective. Semin Oncol. 2020; 47(6):341-352. DOI: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2020.09.001. View

Qiu S, Zhang G, Jansen L, De Vries J, Schroder C, de Vries E . Evolution in sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2018; 123:83-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2017.09.010. View

Cui Q, Dai L, Li J, Xue J . Accuracy of CEUS-guided sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer: a study review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2020; 18(1):112. PMC: 7260746. DOI: 10.1186/s12957-020-01890-z. View

Du J, Wang L, Wan C, Hua J, Fang H, Chen J . Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast lesions: combined utility of conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2012; 81(12):3890-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.09.004. View

10.

Hwang M, Barnewolt C, Jungert J, Prada F, Sridharan A, Didier R . Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the pediatric brain. Pediatr Radiol. 2021; 51(12):2270-2283. PMC: 11458139. DOI: 10.1007/s00247-021-04974-4. View

11.

Zhang Y, Wang X, Kang S, Li X, Geng J . Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in qualitative diagnosis of sentinel lymph node metastasis in breast cancer: A meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Ther. 2016; 11(4):697-703. DOI: 10.4103/0973-1482.146129. View

12.

Fowler J, Solanki C, Guenther I, Barber R, Miller F, Bobrow L . A pilot study of dual-isotope lymphoscintigraphy for breast sentinel node biopsy comparing intradermal and intraparenchymal injection. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009; 35(10):1041-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2009.02.018. View

13.

Luo J, Feng L, Zhou Q, Chen Q, Liu J, Wu C . The value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in determining the location of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer. Cancer Imaging. 2021; 21(1):28. PMC: 7953766. DOI: 10.1186/s40644-021-00397-4. View

14.

Niu Z, Xiao M, Ma L, Qin J, Li W, Zhang J . The value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound enhancement patterns for the diagnosis of sentinel lymph node status in breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2022; 12(2):936-948. PMC: 8739145. DOI: 10.21037/qims-21-416. View

15.

Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow C . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372:n71. PMC: 8005924. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71. View

16.

Whiting P, Rutjes A, Westwood M, Mallett S, Deeks J, Reitsma J . QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155(8):529-36. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009. View

17.

Irwig L, Bossuyt P, Glasziou P, Gatsonis C, Lijmer J . Designing studies to ensure that estimates of test accuracy are transferable. BMJ. 2002; 324(7338):669-71. PMC: 1122584. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.324.7338.669. View

18.

Higgins J, Thompson S . Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002; 21(11):1539-58. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1186. View

19.

Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C . Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997; 315(7109):629-34. PMC: 2127453. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629. View

20.

Zhuang L, Ming X, Liu J, Jia C, Jin Y, Wang J . Comparison of lymphatic contrast-enhanced ultrasound and intravenous contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the preoperative diagnosis of axillary sentinel lymph node metastasis in patients with breast cancer. Br J Radiol. 2021; 95(1130):20210897. PMC: 8822558. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20210897. View