METHODS: One hundred and nine breast cancer patients monitored for cardiotoxicity underwent 2D-echo, followed by pNaI and CZT MUGA scans on the same day. LVEF for CZT camera was processed using both automatic and manual processing methods, thus yielding four methods for the LVEF analysis.
RESULTS: Significant correlation (p<0.01) was seen among all four methods, with varied correlation strengths. Moderate correlation was seen between 2D-echo and both pNaI (r=0.56) and CZT cameras (automatic r=0.54, manual r=0.56). Strong correlation was registered between pNaI and CZT camera (automatic r=0.72, manual r=0.71). Bland-Altman limits of agreement among the three scans were wide and suboptimal. The widest limits were -21.1 to +16.2 (37%) between 2D-echo and CZT auto-processing.
CONCLUSION: Any one of the modalities can be used to measure LVEF, however, their results should not be used interchangeably. The same method of measurement is advised for serial scans.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer were recruited. Combined radiotracer and blue dye methods were used for identification of SLNs. The nodes were thinly sliced and embedded. Serial sectioning and immunohistochemical (IHC) staining against AE1/AE3 were performed if initial HandE sections of the blocks were negative.
RESULTS: SLNs were successfully identified in all patients. Ten cases had nodal metastases with 7 detected in SLNs and 3 detected only in axillary nodes (false negative rate, FNR=30%). Some 5 out of 7 metastatic lesions in the SLNs (71.4%) were detected in initial sections of the thinly sliced tissue. Serial sectioning detected the remaining two cases with either micrometastases or isolated tumour cells (ITC).
CONCLUSIONS: Thin slicing of tissue to 3-5mm thickness and serial sectioning improved the detection of micro and macro-metastases but the additional burden of serial sectioning gave low yield of micrometastases or ITC and may not be cost effective. IHC validation did not further increase sensitivity of detection. Therefore its use should only be limited to confirmation of suspicious lesions. False negative cases where SLNs were not involved could be due to skipped metastases to non-sentinel nodes or poor technique during procurement, resulting in missed detection of actual SLNs.