Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

Impact of BMI on Preoperative Axillary Ultrasound Assessment in Patients With Early Breast Cancer

INA MACAIONE, ANTONIO GALVANO, GIUSEPPA GRACEFFA, SIMONA LUPO, MARIO LATTERI, ANTONIO RUSSO, SALVATORE VIENI and CALOGERO CIPOLLA
Anticancer Research December 2020, 40 (12) 7083-7088; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.14736
INA MACAIONE
1Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences, Surgical Oncology Unit University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ANTONIO GALVANO
2Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences, Medical Oncology Unit, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
GIUSEPPA GRACEFFA
1Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences, Surgical Oncology Unit University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SIMONA LUPO
1Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences, Surgical Oncology Unit University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MARIO LATTERI
1Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences, Surgical Oncology Unit University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ANTONIO RUSSO
2Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences, Medical Oncology Unit, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SALVATORE VIENI
1Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences, Surgical Oncology Unit University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
CALOGERO CIPOLLA
1Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences, Surgical Oncology Unit University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: calogero.cipolla@unipa.it
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: The accuracy of axillary ultrasound (AUS) with fine-needle aspiration with varying patient body mass index (BMI) is still unclear. The aim of our study was to evaluate whether the US features of axillary lymph nodes changes with BMI of patients. Patients and Methods: A retrospective review was performed involving 144 out of 270 patients with early breast cancer who underwent breast surgery with sentinel lymph node biopsy. Diagnostic efficacy of AUS in preoperative axillary nodal staging was assessed in relation to BMI. Results: Negative predictive values of AUS for the overweight and obese groups were statistically significantly lower compared to the normal/underweight group (p=0.02 and p=0.003, respectively). Additionally, Spearman’s correlation coefficient R between BMI and positive sentinel lymph node biopsy was 0.257, suggesting a significantly positive linear relationship between the two variables in the cohort overall. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate how in our cohort the negative predictive value of AUS was significantly influenced by adipose tissue and that the selection of the most suitable instrumental diagnostic technique might contribute to improving heterogeneous results.

Key Words:
  • BMI
  • breast cancer
  • axillary ultrasound
  • predictive value

In 2013 obesity was defined by the American Medical Association as a complex, chronic disease (1). It is the result of complex relationship between genetic, socioeconomic and cultural influences and it is constantly expanding (2).

Obesity is also evaluated with the well-known parameter named the body mass index (BMI). In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer found sufficient evidence to support an association between excess body fat in 13 out of 24 cancer sites, including the breast (3-5).

Breast cancer is the most frequent malignant tumor in women, affecting about one in eight women in industrialized countries (6, 7). Overall 5-year survival is closely related to stage at diagnosis. In patients with early-stage tumors, it can reach up to 95%, falling to 84% in those with locally advanced disease and up to 23% in those with metastatic breast cancer (8). Obese patients with breast cancer have a higher risk of developing lymph node metastases and have a worse prognosis than normal weight patients (9).

Over the past two decades, trials have shown that axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) can be safely omitted in patients with early breast cancer with negative sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) (10, 11). Axillary ultrasound (AUS) associated with fine-needle aspiration of suspicious lymph nodes is the gold standard in preoperative staging of the axilla to identify those patients with metastatic axillary lymph nodes who need to directly undergo axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) without SLNB.

It is unclear how the accuracy of both axillary clinical examination and AUS may vary in relation to the patient’s BMI. However, a high BMI may interfere with several routine clinical examinations. In particular, a high BMI has been proposed as an independent risk factor for failure of sentinel node mapping (12, 13) even though the differences in the accuracy of axillary physical examination and AUS related to patient BMI are poorly understood and few studies have been published on this topic. As a consequence, these patients would be at higher risk for axillary nodal metastasis on SLNB even with a negative clinical examination and AUS.

The aim of our study was to evaluate if the AUS features of axillary lymph nodes change with BMI of the patients.

Patients and Methods

After approval of the Institutional Review Board of the University Hospital AUOP Paolo Giaccone of Palermo (IRB49/2019), the records of 270 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for invasive breast carcinoma at our Institution between January 2018 to June 2020 were retrospectively analyzed.

All patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of clinical early-stage breast cancer, cT1 or cT2 according to the TNM staging system (14), were selected and considered eligible for our study. Exclusion criteria of the study included previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy and previous ipsilateral axillary surgery.

The preoperative work-up consisted of physical examination, mammography and AUS for each patient, in order to determine the local extent of the disease. Any suspicious lesion detected in routine pre-operative evaluation by mammography or ultrasonography was assessed by needle core biopsy or fine-needle aspiration cytology (15). At the end of the preoperative diagnostic work-up, 126 patients were excluded because of metastatic axillary lymph nodes (cN1). Therefore, 144 patients were included in the study. The patients were stratified according to the BMI. The BMI was calculated as the weight divided by the square of the height in meters and was further categorized according to the World Health Organization criteria: Normal/underweight (BMI ≤25 kg/m2), overweight (BMI 25-30 kg/m2) and obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) (16). Histological subtypes were categorized as ductal, lobular and other. The clinical and histopathological characteristics of the overall study population are summarized in Table I.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Clinical parameters of early breast cancer patients enrolled in our study stratified according to weight (normal, overweight and obese).

Axillary ultrasound. All the patients underwent pre-operative AUS to assess the morphological features of ipsilateral lymph nodes. Ultrasonography was performed using a 12-15 MHz linear transducer. Cortical thickening of the lymph node (defined as cortical thickness in excess of 3 mm), loss of fatty hilum and the presence of non-hilar blood flow were considered predictive of metastatic involvement of the lymph nodes. Moreover, a loss of ovality of lymph nodes at AUS was considered predictive of lymph node involvement. All suspicious lymph nodes underwent fine-needle aspiration cytology.

SLN mapping. All patients underwent a preoperative lymphoscintigraphy by means of a sub-dermal peri-areolar injection of 99Tc-labeled human albumin colloid (10-12 MBq of 99mTc in 0.2 ml of albumin colloid), 18-24 hours before surgery (17). SLN was identified by obtaining scintigraphy images 15 to 180 minutes after the administration of the radiotracer and the cutaneous projection of the SLN was marked with indelible ink for identification. For the intraoperative identification of the SLN, a radio-guided surgical probe was used. In those cases, where the radio-guided surgical probe detected a weak radiotracer signal, a sub-areolar injection of 0.5-0.8 ml of vital stain about 10-15 minutes before surgery was performed.

Pathological examination. Nodes with a diameter of more than 5 mm were bisected longitudinally and frozen. SLNs with a diameter of less than 5 mm were frozen intact. The remaining tissue was formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded and entirely sectioned at 100-μm intervals for the definitive histopathological examination. The presence of neoplastic cells was classified as micrometastases (≤2 mm), macrometastases (≥2 mm); single tumor cells or small clusters of cells (<0.2 mm) were defined as isolated tumor cells (18, 19).

Surgical procedure. All patients with SLN macrometastasis at frozen section immediately underwent completion ALND. In cases of SLN which were negative at frozen section but positive for macrometastases at definitive histopathological examination, the patients underwent a delayed completion ALND.

No completion ALND was performed in women with metastasis-free SLN, isolated tumor cells nor in patients with SLN micrometastases, either at intraoperative or at final histopathological examination.

Statistical analysis. Comparing the diagnostic efficacy of AUS and SNB, we considered: True negative (TN) as the number of patients with metastases not found either during AUS or after SLNB; and false-negative (FN) as the number of patients with positive SLNB and negative AUS. The negative predictive value (NPV) was calculated as TN/(TN+FN), and represents the proportion of AUS-negative patients with negative SNB. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to evaluate the difference of the clinical characteristics of the patients. The Mann–Whitney U-test was used for intergroup comparisons of two independent samples, while the chi-square test was used for categorical variables, and in particular to evaluate the FN and NPV differences, according to BMI strata. Spearman’s correlation coefficient was calculated to evaluate the linear correlation between variables. All values were considered statistically significant when p≤0.05. Data were generated using MedCalc software for Windows, version 18.2.1 (MedCalc Software, Ostend, Belgium).

Results

The average patient age was 59 (range=31-85 years). All 144 tumors were ≤3 cm (pT1-pT2). Patients and tumor characteristics are shown in detail in Table I. No significant difference in the average age was detected comparing the three BMI groups. Furthermore, according to the Molecular Subtypes of Breast Cancer classification (20), our study population included 73/138 (52.9%) luminal-A cases, 54/138 (39.1%) luminal-B, 7/138 (5%) triple-negative and 4/138 (2.8%) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-enriched. Interestingly, patients with luminal-A disease were significantly more represented in the normal/underweight cohort (p=0.04) when compared to the overweight group. Six patients were considered as having missing data.

Among the 144 women included in the study, 62 were considered normal/underweight, 46 overweight and 36 obese. The SLN was positive for metastasis in 36 patients in the overall study population (25%). Almost all patients in the three BMI groups underwent breast-conserving surgery (98.6%). Synchronous completion ALND was performed in 26 patients (18%). The AUS FN rate for the entire series was 25% (36/144), in which the SLN was positive for metastasis (Figure 1). According to BMI stratification, the AUS FN rates were 12.1% (8/62) for the normal/underweight group, 30.4% (14/46) for the overweight group and 38.9% (14/36) for the obese group, respectively. NPVs were 87.1% (54/62), 69.5% (32/46) and 61.1% (22/36), respectively. In our study, in accordance with our hypothesis, NPV values for the overweight and obese groups were significant lower compared to the normal/underweight group (p=0.02 and p=0.003, respectively). Additionally, Spearman’s correlation coefficient R between BMI and positive SLNB was 0.257, suggesting a significant (p=0.001) weakly positive linear relationship between the two variables considering the entire cohort (Figure 2).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Axillary ultrasound (AUS) and histopathological reports in an overweight/obese patient. Lymph node negative on AUS (A) diagnosed as metastasis at the pathological report (B). Lymph node positive on AUS (C) confirmed as metastasis at the pathological report (D). Hematoxylin and eosin staining, 200×.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Association between patient weight and number of positive nodes retrieved al the final histological examination (p=0.0001). Spearman’s correlation coefficient was 0.257.

Discussion

In the past decades, surgical treatment for breast cancer has evolved from the Halstead radical mastectomy to breast conservation or skin-sparing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction. ALN status remains the most important prognostic factor, despite the implementation of new genomic analyses and advances in routine pathology, and frequently affects the choice of therapy (21, 22). As an alternative to complete ALND, lymphatic mapping with SLNB, has been applied to patients with breast cancer.

Axillary adenopathy with suspicious ultrasound characteristics and positive needle biopsy allocates patients to neoadjuvant chemotherapy or upfront ALND. Patients with no suspicious nodes on AUS imaging and those with negative AUS-guided biopsy might even be spared the SLNB procedure.

Recent studies have examined the accuracy of some diagnostic methods to detect axilla-limited disease. A normal ALN usually exhibits an ovular shape, uniformly hypoechoic cortex, with a maximal thickness of less than 3 mm, smooth margins and intact central fatty hilum. On the other hand, suspicious findings of ALN include, irregular margins and encroachment or displacement of the fatty hilum, cortical thickness in excess of 3 mm and eccentric thickening. However, it has been demonstrated that the size of the lymph node on imaging cannot reliably help distinguish between normal and abnormal nodes (23). Focal morphological changes of ALN are the most important features differentiating benign from metastatic lymph nodes. For example, the presence of an asymmetric focal hypoechoic node with cortical lobulation or a completely hypoechoic node can be a guideline for performing fine-needle aspiration cytology in the preoperative staging of breast cancer (24).

A recent study has showed that cortical thickness greater than 3.5 mm in the most suspicious node diagnosed three or more positive axillary nodes for which ALND should be performed, with high sensitivity and specificity of 75.6% and 82.7%, respectively (25).

In 2016, Dihge et al. explained how the accuracy of AUS examination is influenced by BMI (26). They assessed the performance of AUS in obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and non-obese patients. The performance of US alone was significantly improved both in specificity and sensitivity in obese patients rather than those with a BMI of less than <30 kg/m2. For AUS-guided biopsy, no difference in performance was observed with respect to BMI.

The impact of obesity on the accuracy of preoperative AUS was also assessed by Shah et al. (27), who found similar sensitivity for detecting nodal metastases in obese and non-obese patients, while the specificity was superior in obese patients. The same authors suggested that while normal ALNs may be more challenging to identify in obese patients, abnormal hypoechoic nodes with thickened cortices are still readily differentiated from the surrounding fat. The clinical implication is that AUS is also a feasible diagnostic method in primary breast cancer in obese patients. Contrary to these findings, in our study, only 12.1% of the cases with positive axillary lymph nodes in the normal weight group were not preoperatively diagnosed. This percentage was increased to 30.4% and 38.9% in the overweight and obese groups, respectively.

The accumulation of lipids within the lymph node can cause both an increase in volume and eco-structural changes that usually occur in chronic reactive and regressing lymphadenopathy. This modification, known as lipoplastic lymphadenopathy, can cause a discrepancy in its final stages between clinical evidence and US evaluation of the lymph node due to the replacement of the entire lymph node parenchyma with adipose tissue. Furthermore, in regions particularly rich in subcutaneous fat such as the axilla, a lymph node totally replaced by fat can also simulate a lipoma, assuming the same oval shape and echoic structure of normal fat, resulting in a FN US examination (28).

Finally, according to some, the abundant adipose tissue present in the lymph nodes of obese individuals can be the cause of a reduced lymphatic flow, with consequent greater mapping error than in the non-obese population (13).

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate how the NPV of preoperative AUS can be significantly influenced by adipose tissue. Despite some limitations, such as the retrospective nature of our data and the lack of node-positive patients because of the exclusion of those treated with neoadjuvant therapy, our study shows that the AUS NPV is significantly dependent on BMI in women with early-stage breast cancer. Further prospective studies will better identify in which categories of patients the NPV of preoperative AUS might be improved by also evaluating the molecular profile of the tumor.

Footnotes

  • ↵* These Authors contributed equally to this work.

  • Authors’ Contributions

    IM: Data analysis and interpretation, statistical analysis, article preparation. AG: Quality control of data and algorithms, data analysis and interpretation, statistical analysis. GG: Article preparation and editing. SL: Data acquisition, article preparation and editing. ML: Study concepts, study design, article review. AR: Study and design, article review. SV: Data acquisition, article editing. CC: Study concepts and design, quality control of data and algorithms, article review.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    The Authors declare that they have no competing interests.

  • Received August 20, 2020.
  • Revision received October 13, 2020.
  • Accepted October 15, 2020.
  • Copyright © 2020 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Kyle TK,
    2. Dhurandhar EJ and
    3. Allison DB
    : Regarding obesity as a disease: Evolving policies and their implications. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 45(3): 511-520, 2016. PMID: 27519127. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecl.2016.04.004
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    1. Koh JC,
    2. Loo WM,
    3. Goh KL,
    4. Sugano K,
    5. Chan WK,
    6. Chiu WYP,
    7. Choi MG,
    8. Gonlachamvit S,
    9. Lee WJ,
    10. Lee WJJ,
    11. Lee YY,
    12. Lesmana LA,
    13. Li YM,
    14. Liu CJ,
    15. Matsuura B,
    16. Nakajima A,
    17. Ng EKW,
    18. Sollano JD,
    19. Kin S,
    20. Wong H,
    21. Wong VWS,
    22. Yang Y,
    23. Ho KY and
    24. Dan YY
    : Asian consensus on the relationship between obesity and gastrointestinal and liver diseases. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 31(8): 1405-1413, 2016. PMID: 27010240. DOI: 10.1111/jgh.13385
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. ↵
    1. Ogden CL,
    2. Yanovski SZ,
    3. Carroll MD and
    4. Flegal KM
    : The epidemiology of obesity. Gastroenterology 132(6): 2087-2102, 2007. PMID: 17498505. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.03.052
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. (NCD-RisC) NRFC
    : Trends in adult body-mass index in 200 countries from 1975 to 2014: A pooled analysis of 1698 population-based measurement studies with 19·2 million participants. Lancet 387(10026): 1377-1396, 2016. PMID: 27115820. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30054-X
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Lauby-Secretan B,
    2. Scoccianti C,
    3. Loomis D,
    4. Grosse J,
    5. Bianchini F and
    6. Straif K
    : Body fatness and cancer–Viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med 375(8): 794-798, 2016. PMID: 27557308. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsr1606602
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Siegel RL,
    2. Miller KD and
    3. Jemal A
    : Cancer statistics 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 69(1): 7-34, 2019. PMID: 30620402. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21551
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. DeSantis CE,
    2. Ma J,
    3. Gaudet MM,
    4. Newman LA,
    5. Miller KD,
    6. Goding Sauer A,
    7. Jemal A and
    8. Siegel RL
    : Breast cancer statistics 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 69(6): 438-451, 2019. PMID: 31577379. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21583
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Shah TA and
    2. Guraya SS
    : Breast cancer screening programs: Review of merits, demerits, and recent recommendations practiced across the world. J Microsc Ultrastruct 5(2): 59-69, 2017. PMID: 30023238. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmau.2016.10.002
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    1. Budny A,
    2. Grochowski C,
    3. Kozłowski P,
    4. Kolak A,
    5. Kamińska M,
    6. Budny B,
    7. Abramiuk M and
    8. Burdan F
    : Obesity as a tumour development triggering factor. Ann Agric Environ Med 26(1): 13-23, 2019. PMID: 30922023. DOI: 10.26444/aaem/100664
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    1. Veronesi U,
    2. Paganelli G,
    3. Viale G,
    4. Luini A,
    5. Zurrida S,
    6. Galimberti V,
    7. Intra M,
    8. Veronesi P,
    9. Robertson C,
    10. Maisonneuve P,
    11. Renne G,
    12. De Cicco C,
    13. De Lucia F and
    14. Gennari R
    : A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 349(6): 546-553, 2003. PMID: 12904519. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa012782
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Krag DN,
    2. Anderson SJ,
    3. Julian TB,
    4. Brown AM,
    5. Harlow SP,
    6. Ashikaga T,
    7. Weaver DL,
    8. Miller BJ,
    9. Jalovec LM,
    10. Frazier TG,
    11. Noyes RD,
    12. Robidoux A,
    13. Scarth HMC,
    14. Mammolito DM,
    15. McCready DR,
    16. Mamounas EP,
    17. Costantino JP and
    18. Wolmark N
    : Technical outcomes of sentinel-lymph-node resection and conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer: results from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase III trial. Lancet Oncol 8(10): 881-888, 2007. PMID: 17851130. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70278-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Hughes M,
    2. Goffman TG,
    3. Perry RR and
    4. Laronga C
    : Obesity and lymphatic mapping with sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer. Am J Surg 187(1): 52-57, 2004. PMID: 14706586. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2003.04.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Derossis AM,
    2. Fey JV,
    3. Cody HS and
    4. Borgen PI
    : Obesity influences outcome of sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. J Am Coll Surg 197(6): 896-901, 2003. PMID: 14644276. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2003.08.005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Amin MB,
    2. Edge S,
    3. Greene, F,
    4. Byrd DR,
    5. Brookland RK,
    6. Washington MK,
    7. Gershenwald JE,
    8. Compton CC,
    9. Hess KR,
    10. Sullivan DC,
    11. Jessup JM,
    12. Brierley JD,
    13. Gaspar LE,
    14. Schilsky RL,
    15. Balch CM,
    16. Winchester DP,
    17. Asare EA,
    18. Madera M,
    19. Gress DM and
    20. Meyer LR
    (eds.): AJCC Cancer Staging Manual Eighth Edition. New York, Springer, 2016.
  14. ↵
    1. Cipolla C,
    2. Fricano S,
    3. Vieni S,
    4. Amato C,
    5. Napoli L,
    6. Graceffa G,
    7. Latteri S and
    8. Latteri MA
    : Validity of needle core biopsy in the histological characterization of mammary lesions. Breast 15(1): 76-80, 2006. PMID: 16473738. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2005.01.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Renehan AG,
    2. Tyson M,
    3. Egger M,
    4. Heller RF and
    5. Zwalhen M
    : Body-mass index and incidence of cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies. Lancet 371: 569-578, 2008. PMID: 18280327. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60269-X
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Caruso G,
    2. Cipolla C,
    3. Costa R,
    4. Morabito A,
    5. Latteri S,
    6. Fricano S,
    7. Salerno S and
    8. Latteri MA
    : Lymphoscintigraphy with peritumoral injection versus lymphoscintigraphy with subdermal periareolar injection of technetium-labeled human albumin to identify sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer patients. Acta Radiol 55(1): 39-44, 2014. PMID: 23926236. DOI: 10.1177/0284185113493775
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Cipolla C,
    2. Cabibi D,
    3. Fricano S,
    4. Vieni S,
    5. Gentile I and
    6. Latteri MA
    : The value of intraoperative frozen section examination of sentinel lymph nodes in surgical management of breast carcinoma. Langenbecks Arch Surg 395(6): 685-691, 2010. PMID: 20012316. DOI: 10.1007/s00423-009-0574-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Cipolla C,
    2. Graceffa G,
    3. Cabibi D,
    4. Gangi G,
    5. Latteri M,
    6. Valerio MR and
    7. Vieni S
    : Current role of intraoperative frozen section examination of sentinel lymph node in early breast cancer. Anticancer Res 40: 1711-1717, 2020. PMID: 32132079. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14124
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Perou CM,
    2. Sørlie T,
    3. Eisen MB,
    4. van de Rijn M,
    5. Jeffrey SS,
    6. Rees CA,
    7. Pollack JR,
    8. Ross DT,
    9. Johnsen H,
    10. Akslen LA,
    11. Fluge O,
    12. Pergamenschikov A,
    13. Williams C,
    14. Zhu SX,
    15. Lønning PE,
    16. Børresen-Dale AL,
    17. Brown PO and
    18. Botstein D
    : Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406(6797): 747-752, 2000. PMID: 10963602. DOI: 10.1038/35021093
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Fisher B,
    2. Bauer M,
    3. Wickerham DL,
    4. Redmond CK,
    5. Fisher ER,
    6. Cruz AB,
    7. Foster R,
    8. Gardner B,
    9. Lerner H and
    10. Margolese R
    : Relation of number of positive axillary nodes to the prognosis of patients with primary breast cancer. An NSABP update. Cancer 52(9): 1551-1557, 1983. PMID: 6352003. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19831101)52:9<1551::aid-cncr2820520902>3.0.co;2-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Cipolla C,
    2. Valerio MR,
    3. Grassi N,
    4. Calamia S,
    5. Latteri S,
    6. Latteri M,
    7. Graceffa G and
    8. Vieni S
    : Axillary nodal burden in breast cancer patients with pre-operative fine needle aspiration-proven positive lymph nodes compared to those with positive sentinel nodes. In Vivo 34(2): 729-734, 2020. PMID: 32111777. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.11831
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Alvarez S,
    2. Añorbe E,
    3. Alcorta P,
    4. López F,
    5. Alonso I and
    6. Cortés J
    : Role of sonography in the diagnosis of axillary lymph node metastases in breast cancer: A systematic review. Am J Roentgenol 186(5): 1342-1348, 2006. PMID: 16632729. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.05.0936
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Bedi DG,
    2. Krishnamurthy R,
    3. Krishnamurthy S,
    4. Edeiken BS,
    5. Le-Petross H,
    6. Fornage BD,
    7. Bassett RL and
    8. Hunt KK
    : Cortical morphologic features of axillary lymph nodes as a predictor of metastasis in breast cancer: In vitro sonographic study. Am J Roentgenol 191(3): 646-652, 2008. PMID: 18716089. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.2460
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Zhu Y,
    2. Zhou W,
    3. Zhou JQ,
    4. Fei XC,
    5. Ye TJ,
    6. Huang O,
    7. Chen XS and
    8. Zhan WW
    : Axillary Staging of early-stage invasive breast cancer by ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology: Which ultrasound criteria for classifying abnormal lymph nodes should be adopted in the post-ACOSOG Z0011 trial era? J Ultrasound Med 35(5): 885-893, 2016. PMID: 27009312. DOI: 10.7863/ultra.15.06019
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Dihge L,
    2. Grabau DA,
    3. Rasmussen RW,
    4. Bendahl PO and
    5. Rydén L
    : The accuracy of preoperative axillary nodal staging in primary breast cancer by ultrasound is modified by nodal metastatic load and tumor biology. Acta Oncol 55(8): 976-982, 2016. PMID: 27050668. DOI: 10.3109/0284186X.2016.1146826
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. ↵
    1. Shah AR,
    2. Glazebrook KN,
    3. Boughey JC,
    4. Hoskin TL,
    5. Shah SS,
    6. Bergquist JR,
    7. Dupont SC and
    8. Hieken TJ
    : Does BMI affect the accuracy of preoperative axillary ultrasound in breast cancer patients? Ann Surg Oncol 21(10): 3278-3283, 2014. PMID: 25074661. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-014-3902-4
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. ↵
    1. Giovagnorio F,
    2. Drudi FM,
    3. Fanelli G,
    4. Flecca D and
    5. Francioso A
    : Fatty changes as a misleading factor in the evaluation with ultrasound of superficial lymph nodes. Ultrasound Med Biol 31(8): 1017-1022, 2005. PMID: 16085092. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2005.04.012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 40 (12)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 40, Issue 12
December 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Impact of BMI on Preoperative Axillary Ultrasound Assessment in Patients With Early Breast Cancer
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
8 + 5 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Impact of BMI on Preoperative Axillary Ultrasound Assessment in Patients With Early Breast Cancer
INA MACAIONE, ANTONIO GALVANO, GIUSEPPA GRACEFFA, SIMONA LUPO, MARIO LATTERI, ANTONIO RUSSO, SALVATORE VIENI, CALOGERO CIPOLLA
Anticancer Research Dec 2020, 40 (12) 7083-7088; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14736

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Impact of BMI on Preoperative Axillary Ultrasound Assessment in Patients With Early Breast Cancer
INA MACAIONE, ANTONIO GALVANO, GIUSEPPA GRACEFFA, SIMONA LUPO, MARIO LATTERI, ANTONIO RUSSO, SALVATORE VIENI, CALOGERO CIPOLLA
Anticancer Research Dec 2020, 40 (12) 7083-7088; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14736
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Sarcopenia and Visceral Metastasis at Cabazitaxel Initiation Predict Prognosis in Patients With Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Receiving Cabazitaxel Chemotherapy
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Assessment of Breakthrough Cancer Pain Among Female Patients With Cancer: Knowledge, Management and Characterization in the IOPS-MS Study
  • Low-dose Apalutamide in Non-metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: A Case Series
  • Bone Toxicity Case Report Combining Encorafenib, Cetuximab and WNT974 in a Phase I Trial
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • BMI
  • breast cancer
  • axillary ultrasound
  • predictive value
Anticancer Research

© 2025 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire