B Schaefgen1, M Mati1, H P Sinn2, M Golatta1, A Stieber3, G Rauch4, A Hennigs1, H Richter1, C Domschke1, F Schuetz1, C Sohn1, A Schneeweiss1,5, Joerg Heil6. 1. Department of Gynecology, University Breast Unit, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Institute of Pathology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Breast Unit, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 5. National Center for Tumor Diseases, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 6. Department of Gynecology, University Breast Unit, Heidelberg, Germany. joerg.heil@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated breast imaging procedures for predicting pathologic complete response (pCR = ypT0) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for breast cancer to challenge surgery as a diagnostic procedure after NACT. METHODS: This retrospective, exploratory, monocenter study included 150 invasive breast cancers treated by NACT. The patients received magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), mammography (MGR), and ultrasound (US). The results were classified in three response subgroups according to response evaluation criteria in solid tumors. To incorporate specific features of MRI and MGR, an additional category [clinical near complete response (near-cCR)] was defined. Residual cancer in imaging and pathology was defined as a positive result. Negative predictive values (NPVs), false-negative rates (FNRs), and false-positive rates (FPRs) of all imaging procedures were analyzed for the whole cohort and for triple-negative (TN), HER2-positive (HER2+), and HER2-negative/hormone-receptor-positive (HER2-/HR+) cancers, respectively. RESULTS: In 46 cases (31%), pCR (ypT0) was achieved. Clinical complete response (cCR) and near-cCR showed nearly the same NPVs and FNRs. The NPV was highest with 61% for near-cCR in MRI and lowest with 44% for near-cCR in MGR for the whole cohort. The FNRs ranged from 4 to 25% according to different imaging methods. The MRI performance seemed to be superior, especially in TN cancers (NPV 94%; FNR 5%). The lowest FPR was 10 % in MRI, and the highest FPR was 44% in US. CONCLUSION: Neither MRI nor MGR or US can diagnose a pCR (ypT0) with sufficient accuracy to replace pathologic diagnosis of the surgical excision specimen.
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated breast imaging procedures for predicting pathologic complete response (pCR = ypT0) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for breast cancer to challenge surgery as a diagnostic procedure after NACT. METHODS: This retrospective, exploratory, monocenter study included 150 invasive breast cancers treated by NACT. The patients received magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), mammography (MGR), and ultrasound (US). The results were classified in three response subgroups according to response evaluation criteria in solid tumors. To incorporate specific features of MRI and MGR, an additional category [clinical near complete response (near-cCR)] was defined. Residual cancer in imaging and pathology was defined as a positive result. Negative predictive values (NPVs), false-negative rates (FNRs), and false-positive rates (FPRs) of all imaging procedures were analyzed for the whole cohort and for triple-negative (TN), HER2-positive (HER2+), and HER2-negative/hormone-receptor-positive (HER2-/HR+) cancers, respectively. RESULTS: In 46 cases (31%), pCR (ypT0) was achieved. Clinical complete response (cCR) and near-cCR showed nearly the same NPVs and FNRs. The NPV was highest with 61% for near-cCR in MRI and lowest with 44% for near-cCR in MGR for the whole cohort. The FNRs ranged from 4 to 25% according to different imaging methods. The MRI performance seemed to be superior, especially in TN cancers (NPV 94%; FNR 5%). The lowest FPR was 10 % in MRI, and the highest FPR was 44% in US. CONCLUSION: Neither MRI nor MGR or US can diagnose a pCR (ypT0) with sufficient accuracy to replace pathologic diagnosis of the surgical excision specimen.
Authors: S Di Cosimo; C Campbell; H A Azim; G Galli; G Bregni; G Curigliano; C Criscitiello; M Izquierdo; L de la Pena; D Fumagalli; L Fein; J Vinholes; W M J Ng; M Colleoni; A Ferro; B J Naume; A Patel; J Huober; M J Piccart-Gebhart; J Baselga; E de Azambuja Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2017-12-08 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: R F D van la Parra; A B Tadros; C M Checka; G M Rauch; A Lucci; B D Smith; S Krishnamurthy; V Valero; W T Yang; H M Kuerer Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Stephen F Sener; Rachel E Sargent; Connie Lee; Tejas Manchandia; Vivian Le-Tran; Yuliya Olimpiadi; Nicole Zaremba; Andrew Alabd; Maria Nelson; Julie E Lang Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2019-08-09 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Henry M Kuerer; Gaiane M Rauch; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Beatriz E Adrada; Abigail S Caudle; Sarah M DeSnyder; Dalliah M Black; Lumarie Santiago; Brian P Hobbs; Anthony Lucci; Michael Gilcrease; Rosa F Hwang; Rosalind P Candelaria; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Benjamin D Smith; Elsa Arribas; Tanya Moseley; Mediget Teshome; Makesha V Miggins; Vicente Valero; Kelly K Hunt; Wei T Yang Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Bruna M Thompson; Luciano F Chala; Carlos Shimizu; Max S Mano; José R Filassi; Felipe C Geyer; Ulysses S Torres; Giselle Guedes Netto de Mello; Cláudia da Costa Leite Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-10-30 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: Ariane A van Loevezijn; Marieke E M van der Noordaa; Erik D van Werkhoven; Claudette E Loo; Gonneke A O Winter-Warnars; Terry Wiersma; Koen K van de Vijver; Emilie J Groen; Charlotte F J M Blanken-Peeters; Bas J G L Zonneveld; Gabe S Sonke; Frederieke H van Duijnhoven; Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-12-02 Impact factor: 5.344