Literature DB >> 34263366

Does preoperative MRI accurately stratify early-stage HER2 + breast cancer patients to upfront surgery vs neoadjuvant chemotherapy?

Astrid Botty van den Bruele1, Emanuela Ferraro2, Varadan Sevilimedu3, Molly P Hogan4, Sidra Javed-Tayyab4, Tiana Le1, Monica N Fornier2, Monica Morrow1, Virgilio Sacchini5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: HER2 +- amplified breast cancer patients derive benefit from treatment with anti-HER2-targeted therapy. Though adjuvant treatment is based on final pathology, decisions regarding neoadjuvant chemotherapy are made in the preoperative setting with imaging playing a key role in staging. We examined the accuracy of pre-operative imaging in determining pathological tumor size  (pT) in patients undergoing upfront surgery.
METHODS: Early (cT1-T2N0) HER2 + breast cancer patients who underwent upfront surgery between 2015 and 2016 were identified from a prospective institutional database. We compared data for both clinical and final pathologic stage. Only those who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), mammography, and ultrasound in the preoperative setting were included in the analysis. Adjuvant treatment regimens were reviewed.
RESULTS: We identified 87 cT1-2N0 patients with invasive HER2 + breast cancer who underwent upfront surgery. Median age was 52 years (IQR 43, 58) and median tumor size was 1.1 cm (IQR 0.5, 1.6). Fifteen patients (17%) were upstaged to stage II/III based on final pathology. Thirty-seven patients were T1cN0 on final pathology; 8 were cT1a-bN0 preop and 12 had pT overestimated by MRI by an average of 1.5 cm (> 0.5-1.5 cm). Compared to both mammography and MRI, the imaging modality most predictive of pT was ultrasound (p = 0.000072 ultrasound vs mammography and 0.000042 ultrasound vs MRI).
CONCLUSION: For small HER2 + cN0 tumors undergoing upfront surgery, ultrasound was the imaging modality most predictive of pT. MRI overestimated tumor size in approximately 40% of patients. MRI may not accurately discriminate low-volume tumor burden in the breast and carries the potential of overtreatment in the upfront setting.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  HER2 + breast cancer; Magnetic resonance imaging; Neoadjuvant chemotherapy; Overestimation; Tumor size; Ultrasound

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34263366      PMCID: PMC9448355          DOI: 10.1007/s10549-021-06331-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.624


  43 in total

1.  Seven-Year Follow-Up Analysis of Adjuvant Paclitaxel and Trastuzumab Trial for Node-Negative, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Sara M Tolaney; Hao Guo; Sonia Pernas; William T Barry; Deborah A Dillon; Lauren Ritterhouse; Bryan P Schneider; Fei Shen; Kit Fuhrman; Michele Baltay; Chau T Dang; Denise A Yardley; Beverly Moy; P Kelly Marcom; Kathy S Albain; Hope S Rugo; Mathew J Ellis; Iuliana Shapira; Antonio C Wolff; Lisa A Carey; Beth Overmoyer; Ann H Partridge; Clifford A Hudis; Ian E Krop; Harold J Burstein; Eric P Winer
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-04-02       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Breast MRI: State of the Art.

Authors:  Ritse M Mann; Nariya Cho; Linda Moy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-07-30       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Agreement between MRI and pathologic analyses for determination of tumor size and correlation with immunohistochemical factors of invasive breast carcinoma.

Authors:  Eun Young Yoo; Sang Yu Nam; Hye-Young Choi; Min Ji Hong
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 1.990

4.  Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Authors:  Albert L Siu
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Predicting Breast Tumor Size for Pre-operative Planning: Which Imaging Modality is Best?

Authors:  Brittany Katz; Christina Raker; David Edmonson; Jennifer Gass; Ashley Stuckey; Tina Rizack
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2016-09-09       Impact factor: 2.431

6.  Dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast is superior to triple assessment for the pre-operative detection of multifocal breast cancer.

Authors:  P J Drew; S Chatterjee; L W Turnbull; J Read; P J Carleton; J N Fox; J R Monson; M J Kerin
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes.

Authors:  Gunter von Minckwitz; Michael Untch; Jens-Uwe Blohmer; Serban D Costa; Holger Eidtmann; Peter A Fasching; Bernd Gerber; Wolfgang Eiermann; Jörn Hilfrich; Jens Huober; Christian Jackisch; Manfred Kaufmann; Gottfried E Konecny; Carsten Denkert; Valentina Nekljudova; Keyur Mehta; Sibylle Loibl
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-04-16       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 8.  Meta-analysis of pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and surgical treatment for breast cancer.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Robin M Turner; Monica Morrow
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Lindsay Turnbull; Sarah Brown; Ian Harvey; Catherine Olivier; Phil Drew; Vicky Napp; Andrew Hanby; Julia Brown
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2010-02-13       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US--diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics.

Authors:  T M Kolb; J Lichy; J H Newhouse
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  1 in total

1.  Escalating de-escalation in breast cancer treatment.

Authors:  Virgilio Sacchini; Larry Norton
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2022-07-28       Impact factor: 4.624

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.