Bruna M Thompson1, Luciano F Chala2, Carlos Shimizu1,2, Max S Mano3, José R Filassi4, Felipe C Geyer5, Ulysses S Torres6, Giselle Guedes Netto de Mello2, Cláudia da Costa Leite1. 1. Institute of Radiology, Clinics Hospital, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. Fleury Group, Rua Cincinato Braga, 282, Bela Vista, São Paulo, SP, 01333-010, Brazil. 3. Department of Oncology, Hospital Sírio Libanês, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Mastology Section, Instituto Do Câncer Do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 5. Department of Pathology, Instituto Do Câncer Do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 6. Fleury Group, Rua Cincinato Braga, 282, Bela Vista, São Paulo, SP, 01333-010, Brazil. ulysses.torres@grupofleury.com.br.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Radiologic complete response (rCR) in breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) does not necessarily correlate with pathologic complete response (pCR), a marker traditionally associated with better outcomes. We sought to verify if data extracted from two important steps of the imaging workup (tumor features at pre-treatment MRI and post-treatment mammographic findings) might assist in refining the prediction of pCR in post-NAC patients showing rCR. METHODS: A total of 115 post-NAC women with rCR on MRI (2010-2016) were retrospectively assessed. Pre-treatment MRI (lesion morphology, size, and distribution) and post-treatment mammographic findings (calcification, asymmetry, mass, architectural distortion) were assessed, as well as clinical and molecular variables. Bivariate and multivariate analyses evaluated correlation between such variables and pCR. Post-NAC mammographic findings and their correlation with ductal in situ carcinoma (DCIS) were evaluated using Pearson's correlation. RESULTS: Tumor distribution at pre-treatment MRI was the only significant predictive imaging feature on multivariate analysis, with multicentric lesions having lower odds of pCR (p = 0.035). There was no significant association between tumor size and morphology with pCR. Mammographic residual calcifications were associated with DCIS (p = 0.009). The receptor subtype remained as a significant predictor, with HR-HER2 + and triple-negative status demonstrating higher odds of pCR on multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Multicentric lesions on pre-NAC MRI were associated with a lower chance of pCR in post-NAC rCR patients. The receptor subtype remained a reliable predictor of pCR. Residual mammographic calcifications correlated with higher odds of malignancy, making the correlation between mammography and MRI essential for surgical planning. Key Points • The presence of a multicentric lesion on pre-NAC MRI, even though the patient reaches a radiologic complete response on MRI, is associated with a lower chance of pCR. • Molecular status of the tumor remained the only significant predictor of pathologic complete response in such patients in the present study. • Post-neoadjuvant residual calcifications found on mammography were related to higher odds of residual malignancy, making the correlation between mammography and MRI essential for surgical planning.
PURPOSE: Radiologic complete response (rCR) in breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) does not necessarily correlate with pathologic complete response (pCR), a marker traditionally associated with better outcomes. We sought to verify if data extracted from two important steps of the imaging workup (tumor features at pre-treatment MRI and post-treatment mammographic findings) might assist in refining the prediction of pCR in post-NAC patients showing rCR. METHODS: A total of 115 post-NAC women with rCR on MRI (2010-2016) were retrospectively assessed. Pre-treatment MRI (lesion morphology, size, and distribution) and post-treatment mammographic findings (calcification, asymmetry, mass, architectural distortion) were assessed, as well as clinical and molecular variables. Bivariate and multivariate analyses evaluated correlation between such variables and pCR. Post-NAC mammographic findings and their correlation with ductal in situ carcinoma (DCIS) were evaluated using Pearson's correlation. RESULTS: Tumor distribution at pre-treatment MRI was the only significant predictive imaging feature on multivariate analysis, with multicentric lesions having lower odds of pCR (p = 0.035). There was no significant association between tumor size and morphology with pCR. Mammographic residual calcifications were associated with DCIS (p = 0.009). The receptor subtype remained as a significant predictor, with HR-HER2 + and triple-negative status demonstrating higher odds of pCR on multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Multicentric lesions on pre-NAC MRI were associated with a lower chance of pCR in post-NAC rCR patients. The receptor subtype remained a reliable predictor of pCR. Residual mammographic calcifications correlated with higher odds of malignancy, making the correlation between mammography and MRI essential for surgical planning. Key Points • The presence of a multicentric lesion on pre-NAC MRI, even though the patient reaches a radiologic complete response on MRI, is associated with a lower chance of pCR. • Molecular status of the tumor remained the only significant predictor of pathologic complete response in such patients in the present study. • Post-neoadjuvant residual calcifications found on mammography were related to higher odds of residual malignancy, making the correlation between mammography and MRI essential for surgical planning.
Authors: Jennifer F De Los Santos; Alan Cantor; Keith D Amos; Andres Forero; Mehra Golshan; Janet K Horton; Clifford A Hudis; Nola M Hylton; Kandace McGuire; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Ingrid M Meszoely; Rita Nanda; E Shelley Hwang Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: B Schaefgen; M Mati; H P Sinn; M Golatta; A Stieber; G Rauch; A Hennigs; H Richter; C Domschke; F Schuetz; C Sohn; A Schneeweiss; Joerg Heil Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-10-14 Impact factor: 5.344
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: Mette S van Ramshorst; Claudette E Loo; Emilie J Groen; Gonneke H Winter-Warnars; Jelle Wesseling; Frederieke van Duijnhoven; Marie-Jeanne T Vrancken Peeters; Gabe S Sonke Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-04-21 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: A Schneeweiss; S Chia; T Hickish; V Harvey; A Eniu; R Hegg; C Tausch; J H Seo; Y-F Tsai; J Ratnayake; V McNally; G Ross; J Cortés Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-05-22 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: R Jeevan; D A Cromwell; M Trivella; G Lawrence; O Kearins; J Pereira; C Sheppard; C M Caddy; J H P van der Meulen Journal: BMJ Date: 2012-07-12
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
Authors: Simon Peter Gampenrieder; Andreas Peer; Christian Weismann; Matthias Meissnitzer; Gabriel Rinnerthaler; Johanna Webhofer; Theresa Westphal; Marina Riedmann; Thomas Meissnitzer; Heike Egger; Frederike Klaassen Federspiel; Roland Reitsamer; Cornelia Hauser-Kronberger; Katharina Stering; Klaus Hergan; Brigitte Mlineritsch; Richard Greil Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 6.466