Literature DB >> 33449096

Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Biopsy to Verify Breast Cancer Pathologic Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Elizabeth J Sutton1, Lior Z Braunstein2, Mahmoud B El-Tamer3, Edi Brogi4, Mary Hughes1, Yolanda Bryce1, Jill S Gluskin1, Simon Powell2, Alyssa Woosley1, Audree Tadros3, Varadan Sevilimedu5, Danny F Martinez1, Larowin Toni1, Olga Smelianskaia1, C Gregory Nyman1, Pedram Razavi6, Larry Norton6, Maggie M Fung7, James D Sedorovich7, Virgilio Sacchini3, Elizabeth A Morris1.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33449096      PMCID: PMC7811182          DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.34045

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Netw Open        ISSN: 2574-3805


  20 in total

1.  Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement.

Authors:  Don C Des Jarlais; Cynthia Lyles; Nicole Crepaz
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Recommendations from an international consensus conference on the current status and future of neoadjuvant systemic therapy in primary breast cancer.

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

3.  Biopsy Feasibility Trial for Breast Cancer Pathologic Complete Response Detection after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Imaging Assessment and Correlation Endpoints.

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

Review 4.  Neoadjuvant Therapy for HER2-positive Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Rachel Wuerstlein; Nadia Harbeck
Journal:  Rev Recent Clin Trials       Date:  2017

5.  A Clinical Feasibility Trial for Identification of Exceptional Responders in Whom Breast Cancer Surgery Can Be Eliminated Following Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy.

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

6.  Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer.

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

7.  Breast cancer: early prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using parametric response maps for MR imaging.

Authors:  Nariya Cho; Seock-Ah Im; In-Ae Park; Kyung-Hun Lee; Mulan Li; Wonshik Han; Dong-Young Noh; Woo Kyung Moon
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-04-13       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Tumor biology correlates with rates of breast-conserving surgery and pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: findings from the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) Prospective Multicenter Clinical Trial.

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

9.  Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, part I: National cancer statistics.

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

10.  Diagnosis of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer by minimal invasive biopsy techniques.

Authors:  Joerg Heil; Sherko Kümmel; Benedikt Schaefgen; Stefan Paepke; Christoph Thomssen; Geraldine Rauch; Beyhan Ataseven; Regina Große; Volker Dreesmann; Thorsten Kühn; Sibylle Loibl; Jens-Uwe Blohmer; Gunter von Minckwitz
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2015-11-10       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Innovative Standards in Surgery of the Breast after Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy.

Authors:  Tal Hadar; Michael Koretz; Mahmood Nawass; Tanir M Allweis
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2021-11-02       Impact factor: 2.860

2.  Prediction of pathologic complete response on MRI in patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy according to molecular subtypes.

Authors:  Jieun Kim; Boo-Kyung Han; Eun Young Ko; Eun Sook Ko; Ji Soo Choi; Ko Woon Park
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-01-06       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  A review of studies on omitting surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.

Authors:  Kexin Feng; Ziqi Jia; Gang Liu; Zeyu Xing; Jiayi Li; Jiaxin Li; Fei Ren; Jiang Wu; Wenyan Wang; Jie Wang; Jiaqi Liu; Xiang Wang
Journal:  Am J Cancer Res       Date:  2022-08-15       Impact factor: 5.942

4.  Preoperative Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a Predictor of Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

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

5.  Racial/Ethnic Differences and Trends in Pathologic Complete Response Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer.

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

Review 6.  De-escalating Surgery Among Patients with HER2 + and Triple Negative Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Marios-Konstantinos Tasoulis; Joerg Heil; Henry M Kuerer
Journal:  Curr Breast Cancer Rep       Date:  2022-07-27

7.  Tumor-Targeted Polydopamine-Based Nanoparticles for Multimodal Mapping Following Photothermal Therapy of Metastatic Lymph Nodes.

Authors:  Yanrui Liang; Weihong Guo; Chuangji Li; Guodong Shen; Haoxian Tan; Peiwen Sun; Zhian Chen; Huilin Huang; Zhenhao Li; Zhenyuan Li; Yingxin Ren; Guoxin Li; Yanfeng Hu
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2022-09-29
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.