Literature DB >> 33806306

Accuracy and Reproducibility of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in the Assessment of Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients with Calcifications in the Tumor Bed.

Valentina Iotti1, Moira Ragazzi2, Giulia Besutti1,3, Vanessa Marchesi1, Sara Ravaioli1, Giuseppe Falco4, Saverio Coiro4, Alessandra Bisagni2, Elisa Gasparini5, Paolo Giorgi Rossi6, Rita Vacondio1, Pierpaolo Pattacini1.   

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) accuracy and reproducibility in the detection and measurement of residual tumor after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in breast cancer (BC) patients with calcifications, using surgical specimen pathology as the reference. Pre- and post-NAC CEM images of 36 consecutive BC patients receiving NAC in 2012-2020, with calcifications in the tumor bed at diagnosis, were retrospectively reviewed by two radiologists; described were absence/presence and size of residual disease based on contrast enhancement (CE) only and CE plus calcifications. Twenty-eight patients (77.8%) had invasive and 5 (13.9%) in situ-only residual disease at surgical specimen pathology. Considering CE plus calcifications instead of CE only, CEM sensitivity for invasive residual tumor increased from 85.7% (95% CI = 67.3-96%) to 96.4% (95% CI = 81.7-99.9%) and specificity decreased from 5/8 (62.5%; 95% CI = 24.5-91.5%) to 1/8 (14.3%; 95% CI = 0.4-57.9%). For in situ-only residual disease, false negatives decreased from 3 to 0 and false positives increased from 1 to 2. CEM pathology concordance in residual disease measurement increased (R squared from 0.38 to 0.45); inter-reader concordance decreased (R squared from 0.79 to 0.66). Considering CE plus calcifications to evaluate NAC response in BC patients increases sensitivity in detection and accuracy in measurement of residual disease but increases false positives.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer; calcifications; contrast-enhanced mammography; neoadjuvant chemotherapy; treatment monitoring

Year:  2021        PMID: 33806306      PMCID: PMC7999407          DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11030435

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)        ISSN: 2075-4418


  30 in total

1.  Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.

Authors:  E Senkus; S Kyriakides; S Ohno; F Penault-Llorca; P Poortmans; E Rutgers; S Zackrisson; F Cardoso
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 32.976

2.  Patient Selection for Clinical Trials Eliminating Surgery for HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy.

Authors:  Susie Sun; Raquel F D van la Parra; Gaiane M Rauch; Christina Checka; Audree B Tadros; Anthony Lucci; Mediget Teshome; Dalliah Black; Rosa F Hwang; Benjamin D Smith; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Vicente Valero; Wei T Yang; Henry M Kuerer
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  Residual Mammographic Microcalcifications and Enhancing Lesions on MRI After Neoadjuvant Systemic Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Breast Cancer: Correlation with Histopathologic Residual Tumor Size.

Authors:  Young-Seon Kim; Jung Min Chang; Hyeong-Gon Moon; Joongyub Lee; Sung Ui Shin; Woo Kyung Moon
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Do Calcifications Seen on Mammography After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer Always Need to Be Excised?

Authors:  Yara Feliciano; Anita Mamtani; Monica Morrow; Michelle M Stempel; Sujata Patil; Maxine S Jochelson
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-01-05       Impact factor: 5.344

5.  Change in microcalcifications on mammography after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: correlation with tumor response grade and comparison with lesion extent.

Authors:  Hyunee Yim; Taeyang Ha; Doo Kyoung Kang; Seong Young Park; Yongsik Jung; Tae Hee Kim
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2018-05-15       Impact factor: 1.990

6.  Analysis of factors that influence the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for predicting response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer.

Authors:  Eun Sook Ko; Boo-Kyung Han; Rock Bum Kim; Eun Young Ko; Jung Hee Shin; Soo Yeon Hahn; Seok Jin Nam; Jeong Eon Lee; Se Kyung Lee; Young-Hyuck Im; Yeon Hee Park
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  The diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with different molecular subtypes of breast cancer.

Authors:  Xinfeng Zhang; Dandan Wang; Zhuangkai Liu; Zheng Wang; Qiang Li; Hong Xu; Bin Zhang; Ting Liu; Feng Jin
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2020-01

8.  Agreement between MRI and pathologic breast tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and comparison with alternative tests: individual patient data meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michael L Marinovich; Petra Macaskill; Les Irwig; Francesco Sardanelli; Eleftherios Mamounas; Gunter von Minckwitz; Valentina Guarneri; Savannah C Partridge; Frances C Wright; Jae Hyuck Choi; Madhumita Bhattacharyya; Laura Martincich; Eren Yeh; Viviana Londero; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2015-10-08       Impact factor: 4.430

9.  Residual microcalcifications after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer: comparison of the accuracies of mammography and MRI in predicting pathological residual tumor.

Authors:  Yeong Yi An; Sung Hun Kim; Bong Joo Kang
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-11-06       Impact factor: 2.754

10.  Accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for estimating residual tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Filipe Ramos Barra; Fernanda Freire de Souza; Rosimara Eva Ferreira Almeida Camelo; Andrea Campos de Oliveira Ribeiro; Luciano Farage
Journal:  Radiol Bras       Date:  2017 Jul-Aug
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.