Purpose Unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy is known to occur after coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccination. Post-vaccination lymphadenopathy may mimic the metastatic lymph nodes in breast cancer, and it is challenging to distinguish between them. This study investigated whether the localization of axillary lymphadenopathy on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) could be used to distinguish reactive lymphadenopathy after COVID-19 vaccines from metastatic nodes. Materials and methods We retrospectively examined preoperative MRI images of 684 axillae in 342 patients who underwent breast cancer surgery from June to October 2021. Lymphadenopathy was defined as cortical thickening or short axis ≥ 5 mm. The axilla was divided into ventral and dorsal parts on the axial plane using a perpendicular line extending from the most anterior margin of the muscle group, including the deltoid, latissimus dorsi, or teres major muscles, relative to a line along the lateral chest wall. We recorded the presence or absence of axillary lymphadenopathy in each area and the number of visible lymph nodes. Results Of 80 axillae, 41 and 39 were included in the vaccine and metastasis groups, respectively. The median time from the last vaccination to MRI was 19 days in the vaccine group. The number of visible axillary lymph nodes was significantly higher in the vaccine group (median, 15 nodes) than in the metastasis group (7 nodes) (P < 0.001). Dorsal lymphadenopathy was observed in 16 (39.0%) and two (5.1%) axillae in the vaccine and metastasis groups, respectively (P < 0.001). If the presence of both ventral and dorsal lymphadenopathy is considered indicative of vaccine-induced reaction, this finding has a sensitivity of 34.1%, specificity of 97.4%, and positive and negative predictive values of 93.3％ and 58.5%, respectively. Conclusion The presence of deep axillary lymphadenopathy may be an important factor for distinguishing post-vaccination lymphadenopathy from metastasis. The number of axillary lymph nodes may also help.

Currently, no three-dimensional reference data exist for the normal coccyx in the standing position on computed tomography (CT); however, this information could have utility for evaluating patients with coccydynia and pelvic floor dysfunction. Thus, we aimed to compare coccygeal parameters in the standing versus supine positions using upright and supine CT and evaluate the effects of sex, age, and body mass index (BMI) on coccygeal movement. Thirty-two healthy volunteers underwent both upright (standing position) and conventional (supine position) CT examinations. In the standing position, the coccyx became significantly longer and straighter, with the tip of the coccyx moving backward and downward (all p < 0.001). Additionally, the coccygeal straight length (standing/supine, 37.8 ± 7.1/35.7 ± 7.0 mm) and sacrococcygeal straight length (standing/supine, 131.7 ± 11.2/125.0 ± 10.7 mm) were significantly longer in the standing position. The sacrococcygeal angle (standing/supine, 115.0 ± 10.6/105.0 ± 12.5°) was significantly larger, while the lumbosacral angle (standing/supine, 21.1 ± 5.9/25.0 ± 4.9°) was significantly smaller. The migration length of the tip of the coccyx (mean, 7.9 mm) exhibited a moderate correlation with BMI (r = 0.42, p = 0.0163). Our results may provide important clues regarding the pathogenesis of coccydynia and pelvic floor dysfunction.

No abstract