In patients eligible for meniscal surgery who first receive physical therapy, multivariable prognostic models cannot predict who will eventually undergo surgery.

PURPOSE: Although physical therapy is the recommended treatment in patients over 45 years old with a degenerative meniscal tear, 24% still opt for meniscal surgery. The aim was to identify those patients with a degenerative meniscal tear who will undergo surgery following physical therapy. METHODS: The data for this study were generated in the physical therapy arm of the ESCAPE trial, a randomized clinical trial investigating the effectiveness of surgery versus physical therapy in patients of 45-70 years old, with a degenerative meniscal tear. At 6 and 24 months patients were divided into two groups: those who did not undergo surgery, and those who did undergo surgery. Two multivariable prognostic models were developed using candidate predictors that were selected from the list of the patients' baseline variables. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed with backward Wald selection and a cut-off of p < 0.157. For both models the performance was assessed and corrected for the models' optimism through an internal validation using bootstrapping technique with 500 repetitions. RESULTS: At 6 months, 32/153 patients (20.9%) underwent meniscal surgery following physical therapy. Based on the multivariable regression analysis, patients were more likely to opt for meniscal surgery within 6 months when they had worse knee function, lower education level and a better general physical health status at baseline. At 24 months, 43/153 patients (28.1%) underwent meniscal surgery following physical therapy. Patients were more likely to opt for meniscal surgery within 24 months when they had worse knee function and a lower level of education at baseline at baseline. Both models had a low explained variance (16 and 11%, respectively) and an insufficient predictive accuracy. CONCLUSION: Not all patients with degenerative meniscal tears experience beneficial results following physical therapy. The non-responders to physical therapy could not accurately be predicted by our prognostic models. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Routine use of standard breast MRI compared to axillary ultrasound for differentiating between no, limited and advanced axillary nodal disease in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: To compare standard breast MRI to dedicated axillary ultrasound (with or without tissue sampling) for differentiating between no, limited and advanced axillary nodal disease in breast cancer patients. METHODS: All patients who underwent breast MRI and dedicated axillary ultrasound between 2009 and 2014 were eligible. Exclusion criteria were recurrent disease, neoadjuvant systemic therapy and not receiving completion axillary lymph node dissection after positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). Two radiologists independently reassessed all MRI exams. Axillary ultrasound findings were retrospectively collected. Probability of advanced axillary nodal disease (pN2-3) given clinically node negative (cN0) or limited (cN1) findings was calculated, with corresponding negative predictive value (NPV) to exclude pN2-3 and positive predictive value (PPV) to identify axillary nodal disease. Histopathology served as gold standard. RESULTS: A total of 377 cases resulted in 81.4% no, 14.4% limited and 4.2% advanced axillary nodal disease at final histopathology. Probability of pN2-3 given cN0 for breast MRI and axillary ultrasound was 0.7-0.9% versus 1.5% and probability of pN2-3 given cN1 was 11.6-15.4% versus 29.0%. When cN1 on breast MRI was observed, PPV to identify positive axillary nodal disease was 50.7% and 59.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of axillary nodal status on standard breast MRI is comparable to dedicated axillary ultrasound in breast cancer patients. In patients who underwent preoperative standard breast MRI, axillary ultrasound is only required in case of suspicious nodal findings on MRI.