Frederik Knude Palshof1, Charlotte Lanng2, Niels Kroman2, Cemil Benian3, Ilse Vejborg3, Anne Bak4, Maj-Lis Talman5, Eva Balslev6, Tove Filtenborg Tvedskov2. 1. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. frederik.knude.palshof.01@regionh.dk. 2. Department of Breast Surgery, Rigshospitalet/Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Department of Radiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Department of Radiology, Herlev Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark. 5. Department of Pathology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. 6. Department of Pathology, Herlev Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some subgroups of breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) show high rates of pathologic complete response (pCR) in the breast, proposing the possibility of omitting surgery. Prediction of pCR is dependent on accurate imaging methods. This study investigated whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is better than ultrasound (US) in predicting pCR in breast cancer patients receiving NACT. METHODS: This institutional, retrospective study enrolled breast cancer patients receiving NACT who were examined by either MRI or combined US and mammography before surgery from 2016 to 2019. Imaging findings were compared with pathologic response evaluation of the tumor. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy for prediction of pCR were calculated and compared between MRI and US. RESULTS: Among 307 patients, 151 were examined by MRI and 156 by US. In the MRI group, 37 patients (24.5 %) had a pCR compared with 51 patients (32.7 %) in the US group. Radiologic complete response (rCR) was found in 35 patients (23.2 %) in the MRI group and 26 patients (16.7 %) in the US group. In the MRI and US groups, estimates were calculated respectively for sensitivity (87.7 % vs 91.4 %), specificity (56.8 % vs 33.3 %), PPV (86.2 % vs 73.8 %), NPV (60.0 % vs 65.4 %), and accuracy (80.1 % vs 72.4 %). CONCLUSIONS: In predicting pCR, MRI was more specific than US, but not sufficiently specific enough to be a valid predictor of pCR for omission of surgery. As an imaging method, MRI should be preferred when future studies investigating prediction of pCR in NACT patients are planned.
BACKGROUND: Some subgroups of breast cancerpatients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) show high rates of pathologic complete response (pCR) in the breast, proposing the possibility of omitting surgery. Prediction of pCR is dependent on accurate imaging methods. This study investigated whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is better than ultrasound (US) in predicting pCR in breast cancerpatients receiving NACT. METHODS: This institutional, retrospective study enrolled breast cancerpatients receiving NACT who were examined by either MRI or combined US and mammography before surgery from 2016 to 2019. Imaging findings were compared with pathologic response evaluation of the tumor. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy for prediction of pCR were calculated and compared between MRI and US. RESULTS: Among 307 patients, 151 were examined by MRI and 156 by US. In the MRI group, 37 patients (24.5 %) had a pCR compared with 51 patients (32.7 %) in the US group. Radiologic complete response (rCR) was found in 35 patients (23.2 %) in the MRI group and 26 patients (16.7 %) in the US group. In the MRI and US groups, estimates were calculated respectively for sensitivity (87.7 % vs 91.4 %), specificity (56.8 % vs 33.3 %), PPV (86.2 % vs 73.8 %), NPV (60.0 % vs 65.4 %), and accuracy (80.1 % vs 72.4 %). CONCLUSIONS: In predicting pCR, MRI was more specific than US, but not sufficiently specific enough to be a valid predictor of pCR for omission of surgery. As an imaging method, MRI should be preferred when future studies investigating prediction of pCR in NACT patients are planned.
Authors: Nehmat Houssami; Petra Macaskill; Gunter von Minckwitz; Michael L Marinovich; Eleftherios Mamounas Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 9.162
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: B Fisher; J Bryant; N Wolmark; E Mamounas; A Brown; E R Fisher; D L Wickerham; M Begovic; A DeCillis; A Robidoux; R G Margolese; A B Cruz; J L Hoehn; A W Lees; N V Dimitrov; H D Bear Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M E M van der Noordaa; F H van Duijnhoven; C E Loo; E van Werkhoven; K K van de Vijver; T Wiersma; H A O Winter-Warnars; G S Sonke; M T F D Vrancken Peeters Journal: Breast Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Priya Rastogi; Stewart J Anderson; Harry D Bear; Charles E Geyer; Morton S Kahlenberg; André Robidoux; Richard G Margolese; James L Hoehn; Victor G Vogel; Shaker R Dakhil; Deimante Tamkus; Karen M King; Eduardo R Pajon; Mary Johanna Wright; Jean Robert; Soonmyung Paik; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-02-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Fernando A Angarita; Robert Brumer; Matthew Castelo; Nestor F Esnaola; Stephen B Edge; Kazuaki Takabe Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 6.575