Evidence Hub

Diagnostic Performance of Noninvasive Imaging for Assessment of Axillary Response After Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy in Clinically Node-positive Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

S. Samiei, C. D. de Mooij, M. Lobbes, K. Keymeulen, T. V. van Nijnatten, M. Smidt

Annals of Surgery, 2020

2,380 participants · 86 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic performance of current noninvasive imaging modalities for assessment of axillary response after neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) in clinically node-positive breast cancer patients.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

NST can lead to downstaging of axillary lymph node disease. Imaging can potentially provide information about the axillary response to NST and, consequently, tailor the surgical management.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase were searched for studies that compared noninvasive imaging after NST with axillary surgery outcome to identify axillary response in patients with initial pathologically proven axillary lymph node metastasis. Two reviewers independently screened the studies and extracted the data. A meta-analysis was performed by computing the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).

RESULTS

Thirteen studies describing 2380 patients were included for final analysis. Of these patients, 1322 had undergone axillary ultrasound, 849 breast MRI, and 209 whole-body F-FDG PET-CT. The overall axillary pathologic complete response rate was 39.5% (941/2380). For axillary ultrasound, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 65%, 69%, 77%, 50%, respectively. For breast MRI, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 60%, 76%, 78%, 58%, respectively. For whole-body F-FDG PET-CT, the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 2,380 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free