Soo-Yeon Kim1,2,3, Nariya Cho4,5,6, Sung Ui Shin1,2,3, Han-Byoel Lee7, Wonshik Han7, In Ae Park8, Bo Ra Kwon1,2,3, Soo Yeon Kim1,2,3, Su Hyun Lee1,2,3, Jung Min Chang1,2,3, Woo Kyung Moon1,2,3. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Seoul National College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Republic of Korea. 3. Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. river7774@gmail.com. 5. Department of Radiology, Seoul National College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Republic of Korea. river7774@gmail.com. 6. Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. river7774@gmail.com. 7. Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 8. Department of Pathology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively investigate whether the lesion-to-background parenchymal signal enhancement ratio (SER) on breast MRI can distinguish pathological complete response (pCR) from minimal residual cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAT), and compare its performance with the conventional criterion. METHODS: 216 breast cancer patients who had undergone NAT and MRI and achieved pCR or minimal residual cancer on surgical histopathology were included. Clinical-pathological features, SER and lesion size on MR images were analysed. Multivariate logistic regression, ROC curve and McNemar's test were performed. RESULTS: SER on early-phase MR images was independently associated with pCR (odds ratio [OR], 0.286 [95% CI: 0.113-0.725], p = .008 for Reader 1; OR, 0.306 [95% CI: 0.111-0.841], p = .022 for Reader 2). Compared with the conventional criterion, SER ≤1.6 increased AUC (0.585-0.599 vs. 0.709-0.771, p=.001-.033) and specificity (21.9-27.4% vs. 80.8-86.3%, p <.001) in identifying pCR. SER ≤1.6 and/or size ≤0.2 cm criterion showed the highest specificity of 90.4%. CONCLUSION: SER on early-phase MR images was independently associated with pCR, and showed improved AUC and specificity compared to the conventional criterion. The combined criterion of SER and size could be used to select candidates to avoid surgery in a future study. KEY POINTS: • Compared with conventional criterion, SER ≤ 1.6 criterion increased AUC and specificity. • Simple measurement of signal intensity could differentiate pCR from minimal residual cancer. • SER ≤1.6 and/or size≤0.2cm criterion showed the highest specificity of 90.4 %. • The combined criterion could be used for a study to avoid surgery.
OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively investigate whether the lesion-to-background parenchymal signal enhancement ratio (SER) on breast MRI can distinguish pathological complete response (pCR) from minimal residual cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAT), and compare its performance with the conventional criterion. METHODS: 216 breast cancerpatients who had undergone NAT and MRI and achieved pCR or minimal residual cancer on surgical histopathology were included. Clinical-pathological features, SER and lesion size on MR images were analysed. Multivariate logistic regression, ROC curve and McNemar's test were performed. RESULTS:SER on early-phase MR images was independently associated with pCR (odds ratio [OR], 0.286 [95% CI: 0.113-0.725], p = .008 for Reader 1; OR, 0.306 [95% CI: 0.111-0.841], p = .022 for Reader 2). Compared with the conventional criterion, SER ≤1.6 increased AUC (0.585-0.599 vs. 0.709-0.771, p=.001-.033) and specificity (21.9-27.4% vs. 80.8-86.3%, p <.001) in identifying pCR. SER ≤1.6 and/or size ≤0.2 cm criterion showed the highest specificity of 90.4%. CONCLUSION:SER on early-phase MR images was independently associated with pCR, and showed improved AUC and specificity compared to the conventional criterion. The combined criterion of SER and size could be used to select candidates to avoid surgery in a future study. KEY POINTS: • Compared with conventional criterion, SER ≤ 1.6 criterion increased AUC and specificity. • Simple measurement of signal intensity could differentiate pCR from minimal residual cancer. • SER ≤1.6 and/or size≤0.2cm criterion showed the highest specificity of 90.4 %. • The combined criterion could be used for a study to avoid surgery.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Magnetic resonance imaging; Neoadjuvant chemotherapy; Pathological complete response; Signal enhancement ratio
Authors: Jennifer F De Los Santos; Alan Cantor; Keith D Amos; Andres Forero; Mehra Golshan; Janet K Horton; Clifford A Hudis; Nola M Hylton; Kandace McGuire; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Ingrid M Meszoely; Rita Nanda; E Shelley Hwang Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Claudette E Loo; Marieke E Straver; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Sara H Muller; Jelle Wesseling; Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-01-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nola M Hylton; Constantine A Gatsonis; Mark A Rosen; Constance D Lehman; David C Newitt; Savannah C Partridge; Wanda K Bernreuter; Etta D Pisano; Elizabeth A Morris; Paul T Weatherall; Sandra M Polin; Gillian M Newstead; Helga S Marques; Laura J Esserman; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Gunter von Minckwitz; Andreas Schneeweiss; Sibylle Loibl; Christoph Salat; Carsten Denkert; Mahdi Rezai; Jens U Blohmer; Christian Jackisch; Stefan Paepke; Bernd Gerber; Dirk M Zahm; Sherko Kümmel; Holger Eidtmann; Peter Klare; Jens Huober; Serban Costa; Hans Tesch; Claus Hanusch; Jörn Hilfrich; Fariba Khandan; Peter A Fasching; Bruno V Sinn; Knut Engels; Keyur Mehta; Valentina Nekljudova; Michael Untch Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 41.316
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: W Fraser Symmans; Florentia Peintinger; Christos Hatzis; Radhika Rajan; Henry Kuerer; Vicente Valero; Lina Assad; Anna Poniecka; Bryan Hennessy; Marjorie Green; Aman U Buzdar; S Eva Singletary; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Lajos Pusztai Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-09-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Antonio C Wolff; M Elizabeth H Hammond; David G Hicks; Mitch Dowsett; Lisa M McShane; Kimberly H Allison; Donald C Allred; John M S Bartlett; Michael Bilous; Patrick Fitzgibbons; Wedad Hanna; Robert B Jenkins; Pamela B Mangu; Soonmyung Paik; Edith A Perez; Michael F Press; Patricia A Spears; Gail H Vance; Giuseppe Viale; Daniel F Hayes Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Laura Heacock; Alana Lewin; Abimbola Ayoola; Melanie Moccaldi; James S Babb; Sungheon G Kim; Linda Moy Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Simon Peter Gampenrieder; Andreas Peer; Christian Weismann; Matthias Meissnitzer; Gabriel Rinnerthaler; Johanna Webhofer; Theresa Westphal; Marina Riedmann; Thomas Meissnitzer; Heike Egger; Frederike Klaassen Federspiel; Roland Reitsamer; Cornelia Hauser-Kronberger; Katharina Stering; Klaus Hergan; Brigitte Mlineritsch; Richard Greil Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 6.466