Importance: After neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), pathologic complete response (pCR) is an optimal outcome and a surrogate end point for improved disease-free and overall survival. To date, surgical resection remains the only reliable method for diagnosing pCR. Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy for diagnosing a pCR after NAC compared with reference-standard surgical resection. Design, Setting, and Participants: Single-arm, phase 1, nonrandomized controlled trial in a single tertiary care cancer center from September 26, 2017, to July 29, 2019. The median follow-up was 1.26 years (interquartile range, 0.85-1.59 years). Data analysis was performed in November 2019. Eligible patients had (1) stage IA to IIIC biopsy-proven operable invasive breast cancer; (2) standard-of-care NAC; (3) MRI before and after NAC, with imaging complete response defined as no residual enhancement on post-NAC MRI; and (4) definitive surgery. Patients were excluded if they were younger than 18 years, had a medical reason precluding study participation, or had a prior history of breast cancer. Interventions: Post-NAC MRI-guided biopsy without the use of intravenous contrast of the tumor bed before definitive surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the negative predictive value of MRI-guided biopsy, with true-negative defined as negative results of the biopsy (ie, no residual cancer) corresponding to a surgical pCR. Accuracy, sensitivity, positive predictive value, and specificity were also calculated. Two clinical definitions of pCR were independently evaluated: definition 1 was no residual invasive cancer; definition 2, no residual invasive or in situ cancer. Results: Twenty of 23 patients (87%) had evaluable data (median [interquartile range] age, 51.5 [39.0-57.5] years; 20 women [100%]; 13 White patients [65%]). Of the 20 patients, pre-NAC median tumor size on MRI was 3.0 cm (interquartile range, 2.0-5.0 cm). Nineteen of 20 patients (95%) had invasive ductal carcinoma; 15 of 20 (75%) had stage II cancer; 11 of 20 (55%) had ERBB2 (formerly HER2 or HER2/neu)-positive cancer; and 6 of 20 (30%) had triple-negative cancer. Surgical pathology demonstrated a pCR in 13 of 20 (65%) patients and no pCR in 7 of 20 patients (35%) when pCR definition 1 was used. Results of MRI-guided biopsy had a negative predictive value of 92.8% (95% CI, 66.2%-99.8%), with accuracy of 95% (95% CI, 75.1%-99.9%), sensitivity of 85.8% (95% CI, 42.0%-99.6%), positive predictive value of 100%, and specificity of 100% for pCR definition 1. Only 1 patient had a false-negative MRI-guided biopsy result (surgical pathology showed <0.02 cm of residual invasive cancer). Conclusions and Relevance: This study's results suggest that the accuracy of MRI-guided biopsy to diagnose a post-NAC pCR approaches that of reference-standard surgical resection. MRI-guided biopsy may be a viable alternative to surgical resection for this population after NAC, which supports the need for further investigation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03289195.
Importance: After neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), pathologic complete response (pCR) is an optimal outcome and a surrogate end point for improved disease-free and overall survival. To date, surgical resection remains the only reliable method for diagnosing pCR. Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy for diagnosing a pCR after NAC compared with reference-standard surgical resection. Design, Setting, and Participants: Single-arm, phase 1, nonrandomized controlled trial in a single tertiary care cancer center from September 26, 2017, to July 29, 2019. The median follow-up was 1.26 years (interquartile range, 0.85-1.59 years). Data analysis was performed in November 2019. Eligible patients had (1) stage IA to IIIC biopsy-proven operable invasive breast cancer; (2) standard-of-care NAC; (3) MRI before and after NAC, with imaging complete response defined as no residual enhancement on post-NAC MRI; and (4) definitive surgery. Patients were excluded if they were younger than 18 years, had a medical reason precluding study participation, or had a prior history of breast cancer. Interventions: Post-NAC MRI-guided biopsy without the use of intravenous contrast of the tumor bed before definitive surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the negative predictive value of MRI-guided biopsy, with true-negative defined as negative results of the biopsy (ie, no residual cancer) corresponding to a surgical pCR. Accuracy, sensitivity, positive predictive value, and specificity were also calculated. Two clinical definitions of pCR were independently evaluated: definition 1 was no residual invasive cancer; definition 2, no residual invasive or in situ cancer. Results: Twenty of 23 patients (87%) had evaluable data (median [interquartile range] age, 51.5 [39.0-57.5] years; 20 women [100%]; 13 White patients [65%]). Of the 20 patients, pre-NAC median tumor size on MRI was 3.0 cm (interquartile range, 2.0-5.0 cm). Nineteen of 20 patients (95%) had invasive ductal carcinoma; 15 of 20 (75%) had stage II cancer; 11 of 20 (55%) had ERBB2 (formerly HER2 or HER2/neu)-positive cancer; and 6 of 20 (30%) had triple-negative cancer. Surgical pathology demonstrated a pCR in 13 of 20 (65%) patients and no pCR in 7 of 20 patients (35%) when pCR definition 1 was used. Results of MRI-guided biopsy had a negative predictive value of 92.8% (95% CI, 66.2%-99.8%), with accuracy of 95% (95% CI, 75.1%-99.9%), sensitivity of 85.8% (95% CI, 42.0%-99.6%), positive predictive value of 100%, and specificity of 100% for pCR definition 1. Only 1 patient had a false-negative MRI-guided biopsy result (surgical pathology showed <0.02 cm of residual invasive cancer). Conclusions and Relevance: This study's results suggest that the accuracy of MRI-guided biopsy to diagnose a post-NAC pCR approaches that of reference-standard surgical resection. MRI-guided biopsy may be a viable alternative to surgical resection for this population after NAC, which supports the need for further investigation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03289195.
Authors: Manfred Kaufmann; Gunter von Minckwitz; Elefhterios P Mamounas; David Cameron; Lisa A Carey; Massimo Cristofanilli; Carsten Denkert; Wolfgang Eiermann; Michael Gnant; Jay R Harris; Thomas Karn; Cornelia Liedtke; Davide Mauri; Roman Rouzier; Eugen Ruckhaeberle; Vladimir Semiglazov; W Fraser Symmans; Andrew Tutt; Lajos Pusztai Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-12-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Gaiane M Rauch; Henry M Kuerer; Beatriz Adrada; Lumarie Santiago; Tanya Moseley; Rosalind P Candelaria; Elsa Arribas; Jia Sun; Jessica W T Leung; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Wei T Yang Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 5.344
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: Wendie A Berg; Lorena Gutierrez; Moriel S NessAiver; W Bradford Carter; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Rebecca S Lewis; Olga B Ioffe Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-10-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Judy C Boughey; Linda M McCall; Karla V Ballman; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Gretchen M Ahrendt; Lee G Wilke; Bret Taback; A Marilyn Leitch; Teresa Flippo-Morton; Kelly K Hunt Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Kathleen A Cronin; Andrew J Lake; Susan Scott; Recinda L Sherman; Anne-Michelle Noone; Nadia Howlader; S Jane Henley; Robert N Anderson; Albert U Firth; Jiemin Ma; Betsy A Kohler; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Robert Browne; Peter McAnena; Niamh O'Halloran; Brian M Moloney; Emily Crilly; Michael J Kerin; Aoife J Lowery Journal: Breast Cancer (Auckl) Date: 2022-06-24
Authors: Sung Jun Ma; Lucas M Serra; Brian Yu; Mark K Farrugia; Austin J Iovoli; Han Yu; Song Yao; Oluwadamilola T Oladeru; Anurag K Singh Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 6.639