Advertisement

Current Breast Cancer Reports

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 1–8 | Cite as

Diagnosing and Managing the Malignant Axilla in Breast Cancer

  • Karina CoxEmail author
  • Meng-Xing Tang
  • Jiaqi Zhu
Breast Cancer Imaging and Screening (N Sharma, Section Editor)
  • 1 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Breast Cancer Imaging and Screening

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The management of the malignant axilla remains a controversial topic. Although many issues have been resolved with the results of randomised controlled trials, there are still areas where evidence is lacking. This review will focus on the current diagnostic methods used to detect lymph node (LN) metastases as well as the impact of volume of LN disease on the choice of axillary management. The roles of surgical excision, radiotherapy and systemic therapy as treatment modalities for LN metastases will also be explored with particular emphasis on the use of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Lastly, new innovations in contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) will be discussed as a potential test for precise and personalised axillary staging.

Recent Findings

The results of the ACOSOG Z011 trial are widely accepted and axillary conservation is now part of mainstream practice in many parts of the World for patients with sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastases and clinical T1/ T2 N0 M0 tumours who had breast-conserving surgery alongside adjuvant whole breast radiotherapy and systemic therapy. Determining the volume of metastatic disease in the axilla is important for treatment decisions and de-escalation of axillary surgery after NACT in patients with biopsy proven pretreatment LN metastases may become part of routine practice for selected patients once long-term outcomes are known. Novel methods to identify LN metastases have been developed over the last 10 years including the use of injected microbubbles and CEUS to locate and biopsy sentinel lymph nodes (SLN). Technological advances including ultrafast and super-resolution ultrasound have the potential to increase the diagnostic accuracy of axillary CEUS.

Summary

The main drawback to current axillary management is the lack of a reliable objective test to quantify LN metastases. The de-escalation of axillary surgery is timely but without an objective non-invasive imaging test to replace the axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), clinicians are reliant on predictive medicine rather than precision diagnostics to plan individual treatment. New innovations in CEUS have the potential to provide a reproducible non-invasive test, which can be used in the future to investigate LN metastases in patients with breast cancer.

Keywords

Breast cancer Axillary staging Lymph node metastases Sentinel lymph node Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) Microbubbles Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy Ultrafast ultrasound Super-resolution ultrasound 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    History of Breast Cancer. Medical therapy of breast cancer 2003. Editors Z Rayter and J Mansi. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pareja F, Marchio C, Geyer FC, Weigelt B, Reis-Filho JS. Breast cancer heterogeneity: roles in tumorigenesis and therapeutic implications. Curr Breast Cancer Rep. 2017;9:34–44.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-017-0233-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    • Giuliano AE, Ballman KV, McCall L, Beitsch PD, Brennan MB, Keleman PR, et al. Effect of axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection on 10-year overall survival survival among women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: the ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017;318:918–26 (Of importance: The long-term results of the ACOSOG Z0011 trial have changed practice across the World and now mean that many patients with SLN metastases can opt for axillary conservation). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Boniface J, Frisell J, Bergkvist L, Andersson Y, on behalf of the Swedish Breast Cancer Group and the Swedish Society of Breast Surgery. Ten-year report on axillary recurrence after negative sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer from the Swedish Multicentre Cohort Study. BJS. 2017;104:238–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, Brown AM, Harlow SP, Constantino JP, et al. Sentinel-lymph–node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:927–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Su YL, Li SH, Chen YY, Chen HC, Tay Y, Huang CH, et al. Postmastectomy radiotherapy benefits sub- groups of breast cancer patients with T1–2 tumor and 1–3 axillary lymph node(s) metastasis. Radiol Oncol. 2014;48:314–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wakisaka N, Hasegawa Y, Yoshimoto S, Miura K, Shiotani A, Yokoyama J, et al. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0144056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yang WT, Chang J, Metreweli C. Patients with breast cancer: differences in color Doppler flow and gray-scale US features of benign and malignant axillary lymph nodes. Radiology. 2000;215(2):568–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferris RL, Lotze MT, Leong SP, Hoon DSB, Morton DL. Lymphatics, lymph nodes and the immune system: barriers and gateways for cancer spread. Clin Exp Metastasis. 2012;29(7):729–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buonomo OC, Caredda E, Portarena I, Vanni G, Orlandi A, Bagni C, et al. New insights into the metastatic behaviour after breast cancer surgery, according to well-established clinicopathological variables and molecular subytpes. PLoS One. 2017;12(9):e0184680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McCartan D, Stempel M, Eaton A, Morrow M, Pilewskie M. Impact of BMI on clinical axillary nodal assessment in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3324–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Majid S, Tengrup I, Majer J. Clinical assessment of axillary lymph nodes and tumor size in breast cancer compared with histopathological examination: a population-based analysis of 2,537 women. World J Surg. 2013;37:67–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Diepstraten SCE, Sever AR, Buckens CFM, Veldhuis WB, van Dalen T, van den Bosch MAAJ, et al. Value of preoperative ultrasound-guided axillary lymph node biopsy for preventing completion axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(1):51–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Sharma N, Cox K. Axillary nodal staging with contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Curr Breast Cancer Rep. 2017;9(4):259–63.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-017-0258-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goldberg BB, Merton DA, Liu JB, Thakur M, Murphy GF, Needleman I, et al. Sentinel lymph nodes in a swine model with melanoma: contrast-enhanced lymphatic US. Radiology. 2004;230:727–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sever A, Jones S, Cox K, Weeks J, Mills P, Jones P. Preoperative localization of sentinel lymph nodes using intradermal microbubbles and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in patients with breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2009;96:1295–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Omoto K, Matsunaga H, Take N, Hozumi Y, Takehara M, Omoto Y, et al. Sentinel node detection method using contrast-enhanced ultrasonography with sonazoid in breast cancer: preliminary clinical study. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2009;35:1249–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    • Cox K, Taylor-Phillips S, Sharma N, Weeks J, Mills P, Sever A, et al. Enhanced pre-operative axillary staging using intradermal microbubbles and contrast-enhanced ultrasound to detect and biopsy sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer: a potential replacement for axillary surgery. Br J Radiol. 2017;90:20170626 (Of importance: This study firstly confirmed the limitations of the microbubble/CEUS SLN biopsy as a test to identify all LN metastases but importantly also showed that patients with a normal grey-scale axillary ultrasound and benign biopsy of SLN with CEUS were unlikely to have high-volume ultrasound occult LN metastases). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rautiainen S, Sudah M, Joukainen S, Sironen R, Vanninen R, Sutela A. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound-guided axillary lymph node core biopsy: diagnostic accuracy in preoperative staging of invasive breast cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:2130–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barentsz MW G, Verkooijen HM, Pijnappel RM, Fernandez MA, van Diest PJ, van der Pol CC, et al. Sentinel lymph node localization with contrast-enhanced ultrasound and an I-25 seed: An ideal prospective development study. Int J Surg. 2015;14:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xie F, Zhang D, Cheng L, Yu L, Yang L, Tong F, et al. Intradermal microbubbles and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is a feasible approach for sentinel lymph identification in early-stage breast cancer. World J Surg Oncol. 2015;13:319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Esfehani MH, Yazdankhah-Kenari A, Omranipour R, Mahmoudzadeh HA, Shahriaran S, Zafarghandi MR, et al. Validation of contrast enhanced ultrasound technique to wire localization of sentinel lymph node in patients with early breast cancer. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2015;6:370–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Oral presentation SSJ02-06, RSNA 2016, Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nielsen Moody A, Bull J, Culpan AM, Munyombwe T, Sharma N, Whitaker M, et al. Preoperative sentinel lymph node identification, biopsy and localization using contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in patients with breast cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Clin Radiol. 2017;72:959–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sever A, Broillet A, Schneider M, Cox K, Jones S, Weeks J, et al. Dynamic visualization of lymphatic channels and sentinel lymph nodes using intradermal microbubbles and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in a swine model and patients with breast cancer. J Ultrasound Med. 2010;29:1699–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cox K, Sever A, Jones S, Weeks J, Mills P, Devalia H, et al. Validation of a technique using microbubbles and contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) to biopsy sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) in pre-operative breast cancer patients with a normal grey-scale axillary ultrasound. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39:760–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lowes S, Leaver A, Cox K, Satchithananda K, Cosgrove D, Lim A. Evolving imaging techniques for staging axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer. Clin Radiol. 2018;73:396–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cooper KL, Meng Y, Harnan S, Ward SE, Fitzgerald P, Papaioannou D, et al. Positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the assessment of axillary lymph node metastases in early breast cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(4):iii–v.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    • Bromham N, Schmidt-Hansen M, Astin M, Hasler E, Reed MW. Axillary treatment for operable primary breast cancer (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;1:CD004561 (Of importance: This systematic review succinctly evaluates all of the available evidence relating to axillary treatment in patients with breast cancer. Moderate quality evidence indicates that patients treated with lesser axillary surgery such as sampling or SLNB do not have a reduced chance of survival when compared with those who had ALND; patients who do not have any axillary LN removed are at increased risk of locoregional recurrence). PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mansel RE, Fallowfield L, Kissin M, Goyal A, Newcombe RG, Dixon JM, et al. Randomized multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy versus standard axillary treatment in operable breast cancer: the Almanac trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:599–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pesek S, Ashikaga T, Krag LE, Krag D. The false-negative rate of sentinel node biopsy in patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg. 2012;36:2239–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bézu C, Coutant C, Salengro A, Daraï E, Rouzier R, Uzan S. Anaphylactic response to blue dye during sentinel lymph node biopsy. Surg Oncol. 2011;20(1):e55–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ban EJ, Lee JS, Koo JS, Park S, Kim SI, Park BW. How many sentinel lymph nodes are enough for axillary staging in t1-2 breast cancer? J Breast Cancer. 2011;14:296–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mansel RE, MacNeill F, Horgan K, Goyal A, Britten A, Townson J, et al. Results of a national training programme in sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer. BJS. 2013;100:654–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kim MK, Park HS, Kim JY, Kim S, Nam S, Park S, et al. The clinical implication of the number of lymph nodes harvested during sentinel lymph node biopsy and its effects on survival outcome in patients with node-negative breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2017;214:726–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wilkerson A, Averbrook B, Joseph N, Sharpe S, Li B. Staging breast cancer by sentinel lymph node biopsy: do patients with a single negative sentinel node (N=1) experience worse outcomes than those with multiple negative sentinel nodes (N>1)? Surg Oncol. 2018;27:327–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Likanen JS, Leidenius MH, Joensuu H, Vironen JH, Meretoja TJ. Prognostic value of isolated tumour cells in sentinel lymph nodes in early-stage breast cancer: a prospective study. Br J Cancer. 2018;118:1529–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Andersson Y, Bergkvist L, Frisell J, de Boniface J. Long-term breast cancer survival in relation to the metastatic tumor burden in axillary lymph nodes. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;171:359–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    De Boer M, van Deurzen CHM, van Dijck JAAM, Borm GF, van Diest PJ, et al. Micrometastases or isolate tumour cells and the outcome of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:653–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    • Galimberti V, Cole BF, Viale G, Veronesi P, Vicini E, Intra M, et al. Axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with breast cancer and sentinel-node micrometastases (IBCSG 23-01): 10-year follow-up of a randomised controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:1385–93 (Of importance: This trial reported that in patients with SLN micrometastases, ALND did not improve disease-free survival, local recurrence, or regional recurrence). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    de Boniface FJ, Andersson Y, Bergkvist L, Ahlgren J, Ryden L, et al. Survival and axillary recurrence following sentinel node-positive breast cancer without completion axillary lymph node dissection: the randomised controlled SENOMAC trial. BMC Cancer. 2017;17(1):379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Goyal A, Dodwell D. POSNOC: a randomised trial looking at axillary treatment in women with one or two sentinel nodes with macrometastases. Cin Oncol. 2015;27:692–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Groheux D, Cochet A, Humbert O, Alberini J-L, Hindie E, Mankoff D. 18F-FDG PET/CT for staging and restaging of breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(Supplement 1):17S–26S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    O’Connell RL, Di Micco R, Khabra K, Kirby AM, Harris PA, James SE, et al. Comparison of immediate versus delayed DIEP flap reconstruction in women who require postmastectomy radiotherapy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142:594–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Caudle AS, Kuerer HM, Le-Petross HT, Yang W, Yi M, Bedrosian I, et al. Predicting the extent of nodal disease in early-stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:3440–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ahmed M, Jozsa F, Baker R, Rubio IT, Benson J, Douek M. Meta-analysis of tumour burden in pre-operative axillary ultrasound positive and negative breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;166:329–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cox K, Weeks J, Mills P, Chalmers R, Devalia H, Fish D, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound biopsy of sentinel lymph nodes in patients with breast cancer: implications for axillary metastases and conservation. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:58–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Grills IS, Kestin LL, Goldstein N, Mitchell C, Martinez A, Ingold J, et al. Risk factors for regional nodal failure after breast-conserving therapy: regional nodal irradiation reduces rate of axillary failure in patients with four or more positive lymph nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;56:658–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yates L, Kirby A, Crichton S, Gillett C, Cane P, Fentiman I, et al. Risk factors for regional nodal relapse in breast cancer patients with one to three positive axillary nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82:2093–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Donker M, van Tienhoven G, Straver ME, Meijnen P, van de Velde C, Mansel RE, et al. Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer (EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:1303–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hortobagyi GN, Connolly JL, D’Orsi CJ, Edge SB, Mittendorf EA, Rugo HS, et al. Breast. In: Amin MB, editor. AJCC cancer staging manual. 8th ed. New York: Springer; 2017. p. 589–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mittendorf EA, Chavez-MacGregor M, Vila J, Yi M, Lichtensztajn DY, Clarke CA, et al. Bioscore: a staging system for breast cancer patients that reflects the prognostic significance of underlying tumor biology. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:3502–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Xing Y, Foy M, Cox DD, Kuerer HM, Hunt KK, Cormier JN. Meta-analysis of sentinel lymph node biopsy after preoperative chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2006;93:539–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Fisher ER, Wang J, Bryant J, et al. Pathobiology of preoperative chemotherapy: findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel (NSABP) protocol B-18. Cancer. 2002;95(4):681–95.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.10741 [published Online First: 2002/09/05].CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Moo TA, Edelweiss M, Hajiyeva S, Stempel M, Raiss M, Zabor EC, et al. Is low-volume disease in the sentinel node after neoadjuvant chemotherapy an indication for axillary dissection? Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(6):1488–94.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6429-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E, Wieland S, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:2483–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mamtani A, Barrio AV, King TA, Van Zee KJ, Plitas G, Pilewskie M, et al. How often does neoadjuvant chemotherapy avoid axillary dissection in patients with histologically confirmed nodal metastases? Results of a prospective study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3467–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Alvarado R, Yi M, Le-Petross H, Gilcrease M, Mittendorf EA, Bedrosian I, et al. The role for sentinel lymph node dissection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients who present with node-positive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3177–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kuehn T, Bauerfeind I, Fehm T, Fleige B, Hausschild M, Helms G, et al. Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy in patients with breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (SENTINA): a prospective, multicenter cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:609–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA, Ahrendt GM, Wilke LG, Taback B, et al. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer: the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310:1455–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Schwartz T, Fisher C. Sentienl lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with axillary metastases: can we avoid the unavoidable? Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3429–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Caudle AS, Yang WT, Krishnamurthy S, Mittendorf EA, Black DM, Gilcrease MZ, et al. Improved axillary evaluation following neoadjuvant therapy for patients with node-positive breast cancer using selective evaluation of clipped nodes: implementation of targeted axillary dissection. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1072–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Donker M, Straver ME, Wesseling J, Loo CE, Schot M, Drukker CA, et al. Marking axillary lymph nodes with radioactive iodine seeds for axillary staging after neoadjuvant systemic treatment in breast cancer patients: the MARI procedure. Ann Surg. 2015;261:378–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Mamounas EP WJ, Bandos H, Julian TB, Kahn AJ, Shaitelman SF et al. NSABP B-51/RTOG 1304: randomized phase III clinical trial evaluating the role of postmastectomy chest wall and regional nodal XRT (CWRNRT) and post-lumpectomy RNRT in patients (pts) with documented positive axillary (Ax) nodes before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC) who convert to pathologically negative axillary nodes after NC. J Clin Oncol 2014: 32.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2014.32.15_suppl.tps1141.
  67. 67.
    Tanter, M. and M. Fink, Ultrafast imaging in Biomedical Ultrasound. IEEE T. UFFC. 2014;61(1):102–119.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Tortoli, P., Bassi L., Boni E., Dallai A., Guidi F., Ricci S. ULA-OP: an advanced open platform for ultrasound research. IEEE T. UFFC, 2009;56(10):2207–2216.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Christensen-Jeffries K, Browning RJ, Tang MX, Dunsby C, Eckersley RJ. In vivo acoustic super-resolution and super-resolved velocity mapping using microbubbles. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2015;34(2):433–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Errico C, Pierre J, Pezet S, Desailly Y, Lenkei Z, Couture O, et al. Ultrafast ultrasound localization microscopy for deep super-resolution vascular imaging. Nature. 2015;527(7579):499–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Peggy Wood Breast CentreMaidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS TrustMaidstoneUK
  2. 2.Department of BioengineeringImperial College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations