Purpose Removal of clipped nodes can improve sentinel node biopsy accuracy in breast cancer patients post neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). However, the current methods of clipped node localization have limitations. We evaluated the feasibility of a novel clipped node localization and removal technique by preoperative skin marking of clipped nodes and removal by the Skin Mark clipped Axillary nodes Removal Technique (SMART), with the secondary aim of assessing the ultrasound visibility of the various clips in the axillary nodes after NACT. Methods Invasive breast cancer patients with histologically metastatic axillary nodes, going for NACT, and ≤3 sonographically abnormal axillary nodes were recruited. All abnormal nodes had clips inserted. Patients with M1 disease were excluded. Post‐NACT, patients underwent SMART and axillary lymph node dissection. Specimen radiography and pathological analyses were performed to confirm the clipped node presence. Success, complication rates of SMART, and ultrasound visibility of the various clips were assessed. Results Twenty‐five clipped nodes in 14 patients underwent SMART without complications. The UltraCor Twirl, hydroMARK, UltraClip Dual Trigger, and UltraClip were removed in 13/13 (100%), 7/9 (77.8%), 1/2 (50.0%), and 0/1 (0%), respectively (P = .0103) with UltraCor Twirl having the best ultrasound visibility and removal rate. Removal of three clipped nodes in the same patient (P = .0010) and deeply seated clipped nodes (P = .0167) were associated with SMART failure. Conclusion Skin Mark clipped Axillary nodes Removal Technique is feasible for removing clipped nodes post‐NACT, with 100% observed success rate, using the UltraCor Twirl marker in patients with <3 not deeply seated clipped nodes. Larger studies are needed for validation.

Lessons Learned Removal of sonographically abnormal (up to 3) metastatic clipped nodes, without sentinel lymph node biopsy, could accurately predict axillary status in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. ypT and the first clipped node status were statistically significant factors for nodal pathologic complete response. This novel approach requires validation in larger studies. Background In patients who have node‐positive breast cancer, neoadjuvant chemotherapy could result in nodal pathologic complete response (pCR) and avoid an axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). Axillary staging, in such cases, can be performed using targeted axillary dissection (TAD) with a low false negative rate. However, identification of sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) after chemotherapy can be difficult, and currently, it is the standard to remove only one clipped node in TAD. We aimed to determine if removal of all sonographically abnormal metastatic clipped nodes, without SLN biopsy, could accurately predict the axillary status post neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Methods Patients with breast cancer with one to three sonographically abnormal metastatic axillary nodes were prospectively recruited. Each abnormal node had histology and clip insertion before neoadjuvant chemotherapy. After chemotherapy, the patients underwent removal of clipped nodes using the Skin Mark clipped Axillary nodes Removal Technique (SMART) and ALND. Results Fourteen patients were recruited, having a total of 21 sonographically abnormal metastatic nodes, with nine, three, and two patients having 1, 2, and 3 malignant nodes clipped, respectively. Mean age was 55.5 years; 92.9% and 57.1% of patients had invasive ductal carcinoma and grade III tumors, respectively; and 35.7% patients achieved nodal pCR. The first clipped node predicted the axillary status with a false negative rate of 7.1%. Adding to this another second clipped node, the false negative rate was 0%. Pathologic tumor staging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (ypT) (p = .0390) and the first clipped node pathological response status (p = .0030) were statistically significant predictors for nodal pCR. Conclusion Removal of sonographically abnormal metastatic clipped nodes using SMART, without sentinel lymph node biopsy, could accurately predict axillary status. This finding needs validation in larger studies.

No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUND: The normal imaging appearances of the common agents used in injection mammoplasty and the challenges of mammography screening will be reviewed. METHODS: The local database from a tertiary hospital was accessed for imaging cases of injection mammoplasty. RESULTS: Free silicone is seen as multiple high-density opacities on mammograms. Silicone deposits can often be seen within axillary nodes due to lymphatic migration. Sonographically, a snowstorm appearance is seen when the silicone is diffusely distributed. On MRI, free silicone is hypointense on T1-weighted and hyperintense on T2-weighted images, with no contrast enhancement. Mammograms have a limited role in screening due to the high density of silicone. MRI is often required in these patients. Polyacrylamide gel and hyaluronic acid are seen as multiple collections on mammography. Polyacrylamide gel collections are of the same density as cysts, while hyaluronic acid collections are of higher density but less dense than silicone. On ultrasound, both can appear anechoic or show variable internal echoes. MRI demonstrates fluid signal with hypointense T1-weighted and hyperintense T2-weighted signal. Mammographic screening is possible if the injected material is located predominantly in the retro-glandular space without obscuring the breast parenchyma. On mammograms, autologous fat locules appear as lucent masses. Rim calcification can be seen if fat necrosis had developed. On ultrasound, focal fat collections can demonstrate varying levels of internal echogenicity, depending on the stage of fat necrosis. Mammographic screening is usually possible for patients after autologous fat injection as fat is hypodense compared to breast parenchyma. However, the dystrophic calcification associated with fat necrosis may mimic abnormal breast calcification. In such cases, MRI can be utilized as a problem-solving tool. CONCLUSION: It is important for the radiologist to recognize the type of injected material on the various imaging modalities and recommend the best modality for screening.