OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of response evaluation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in breast cancer patients, assessed by both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and pathology, on disease-free survival (DFS). METHODS: This single-center, retrospective cohort study included consecutive breast cancer patients who underwent NAC and preoperative breast MRI. Resolution of invasive carcinoma in the breast and axilla was defined as complete pathological response (pCR). Radiological complete response (rCR) was defined as the absence of abnormal enhancement in the tumor site. Kaplan-Meier estimator was used to estimate the disease-free survival on 60 months. Cox regression analysis was used to estimate hazard ratio (HR) values. RESULTS: In total, 317 patients were included with a mean age of 47.3 years and a mean tumor size of 39.8 mm. The most common immunophenotype was luminal (44.9%), followed by triple-negative (26.8%). Overall, 126 patients (39.7%) had an rCR, while 119 (37.5%) had pCR; the radiological and pathological responses agreed in 252 cases (79.5%). During follow-up, patients who had rCR and pCR had a better DFS curve compared to patients with non-rCR and non-pCR, while those who had rCR or pCR presented an intermediate curve (Log-rank p = 0.003). Multivariate analysis showed a higher risk of recurrence in patients with non-rCR and non-pCR (HR: 5,626; p = 0.020) and those who had a complete response on MRI or pathology only (HR: 4,369; p = 0.067), when compared to patients with rCR and pCR. CONCLUSIONS: The association of MRI and pathological responses after NAC might better stratify the risk of recurrence and prognosis in breast cancer patients. KEY POINTS: • Association of response evaluation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy by pathology and MRI allows better stratification of prognosis. • Complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy on pathology and MRI was related to better disease-free survival. • Complete response on MRI or pathology only had a greater risk of recurrence.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of response evaluation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in breast cancerpatients, assessed by both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and pathology, on disease-free survival (DFS). METHODS: This single-center, retrospective cohort study included consecutive breast cancerpatients who underwent NAC and preoperative breast MRI. Resolution of invasive carcinoma in the breast and axilla was defined as complete pathological response (pCR). Radiological complete response (rCR) was defined as the absence of abnormal enhancement in the tumor site. Kaplan-Meier estimator was used to estimate the disease-free survival on 60 months. Cox regression analysis was used to estimate hazard ratio (HR) values. RESULTS: In total, 317 patients were included with a mean age of 47.3 years and a mean tumor size of 39.8 mm. The most common immunophenotype was luminal (44.9%), followed by triple-negative (26.8%). Overall, 126 patients (39.7%) had an rCR, while 119 (37.5%) had pCR; the radiological and pathological responses agreed in 252 cases (79.5%). During follow-up, patients who had rCR and pCR had a better DFS curve compared to patients with non-rCR and non-pCR, while those who had rCR or pCR presented an intermediate curve (Log-rank p = 0.003). Multivariate analysis showed a higher risk of recurrence in patients with non-rCR and non-pCR (HR: 5,626; p = 0.020) and those who had a complete response on MRI or pathology only (HR: 4,369; p = 0.067), when compared to patients with rCR and pCR. CONCLUSIONS: The association of MRI and pathological responses after NAC might better stratify the risk of recurrence and prognosis in breast cancerpatients. KEY POINTS: • Association of response evaluation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy by pathology and MRI allows better stratification of prognosis. • Complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy on pathology and MRI was related to better disease-free survival. • Complete response on MRI or pathology only had a greater risk of recurrence.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast neoplasms; Magnetic resonance imaging; Neoadjuvant therapy
Authors: Kimberly H Allison; M Elizabeth H Hammond; Mitchell Dowsett; Shannon E McKernin; Lisa A Carey; Patrick L Fitzgibbons; Daniel F Hayes; Sunil R Lakhani; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Jane Perlmutter; Charles M Perou; Meredith M Regan; David L Rimm; W Fraser Symmans; Emina E Torlakovic; Leticia Varella; Giuseppe Viale; Tracey F Weisberg; Lisa M McShane; Antonio C Wolff Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-01-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Patricia Cortazar; Lijun Zhang; Michael Untch; Keyur Mehta; Joseph P Costantino; Norman Wolmark; Hervé Bonnefoi; David Cameron; Luca Gianni; Pinuccia Valagussa; Sandra M Swain; Tatiana Prowell; Sibylle Loibl; D Lawrence Wickerham; Jan Bogaerts; Jose Baselga; Charles Perou; Gideon Blumenthal; Jens Blohmer; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Jonas Bergh; Vladimir Semiglazov; Robert Justice; Holger Eidtmann; Soonmyung Paik; Martine Piccart; Rajeshwari Sridhara; Peter A Fasching; Leen Slaets; Shenghui Tang; Bernd Gerber; Charles E Geyer; Richard Pazdur; Nina Ditsch; Priya Rastogi; Wolfgang Eiermann; Gunter von Minckwitz Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 79.321
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 Hale Hammond; Kimberly H Allison; Brittany E Harvey; Pamela B Mangu; John M S Bartlett; Michael Bilous; Ian O Ellis; Patrick Fitzgibbons; Wedad Hanna; Robert B Jenkins; Michael F Press; Patricia A Spears; Gail H Vance; Giuseppe Viale; Lisa M McShane; Mitchell Dowsett Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 44.544