Literature DB >> 35303180

Preoperative MRI and Its Impact on Surgical Outcomes in Patients with Triple Negative Breast Cancer Treated with Primary Surgery: Did New Margin Guidelines or Cavity Shave Margins Practice Diminish the Role of Preoperative MRI?

Laura Burkbauer1, Macy Goldbach1, Daniel I Hoffman1, Andreas Giannakou2, Rachel Dultz3, Ari D Brooks1, Dahlia M Sataloff4, Luke Keele5, Julia Tchou6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Results of an earlier retrospective study from our institution suggested that patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) who had preoperative MRI may have had an improved local recurrence rate (LRR) after breast conserving surgery (BCS). We aimed to clarify the impact of preoperative MRI on surgical outcomes in an expanded TNBC cohort treated by BCS in a contemporary era.
METHODS: Our study cohort comprised 648 patients with TNBC who underwent BCS between 2009 and 2018. Demographic and clinical characteristics were compared between those with (n = 292, 45.1%) and without (n = 356, 54.9%) preoperative MRI. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess the association of preoperative MRI with surgical outcomes.
RESULTS: The crude LRR of 3.5% was lower than previously reported. Univariable analyses demonstrated that the LRR and re-excision rates in the MRI and no-MRI groups were 3.4 and 3.7%, 21.6% and 27.2%, p = 0.876 and p = 0.10, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analyses demonstrated that preoperative MRI was not associated with a lower LRR: odds ratio (OR) = 1.42 (p = 0.5). During our study period, new margin guidelines and shave margins practice were adopted in 2014 and 2015. To account for their effects, the year of diagnosis/surgery and other clinical variables were adjusted in multivariable logistic regression and inverse probability weighting models to demonstrate that preoperative MRI remained associated with a lower re-excision risk, OR 0.56, p = 0.04l; and a lower re-excision rate, 23.15% versus 36.0%, p < 0.01, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggested that patients with TNBC anticipating BCS may benefit from preoperative MRI.
© 2022. Society of Surgical Oncology.

Entities:  

Year:  2022        PMID: 35303180     DOI: 10.1245/s10434-022-11545-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  18 in total

1.  Clinical indications: what is the evidence?

Authors:  Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 3.528

2.  No impact of breast magnetic resonance imaging on 15-year outcomes in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ or early-stage invasive breast cancer managed with breast conservation therapy.

Authors:  Neha Vapiwala; Wei-Ting Hwang; Carolyn J Kushner; Mitchell D Schnall; Gary M Freedman; Lawrence J Solin
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-12-16       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Preoperative MRI and surgical management in patients with nonpalpable breast cancer: the MONET - randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  N H G M Peters; S van Esser; M A A J van den Bosch; R K Storm; P W Plaisier; T van Dalen; S C E Diepstraten; T Weits; P J Westenend; G Stapper; M A Fernandez-Gallardo; I H M Borel Rinkes; R van Hillegersberg; W P Th M Mali; P H M Peeters
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2010-12-30       Impact factor: 9.162

4.  A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Cavity Shave Margins in Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Anees B Chagpar; Brigid K Killelea; Theodore N Tsangaris; Meghan Butler; Karen Stavris; Fangyong Li; Xiaopan Yao; Veerle Bossuyt; Malini Harigopal; Donald R Lannin; Lajos Pusztai; Nina R Horowitz
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-05-30       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 5.  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

6.  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

7.  Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Lorena Gutierrez; Moriel S NessAiver; W Bradford Carter; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Rebecca S Lewis; Olga B Ioffe
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-10-14       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Mammographic features of triple receptor-negative primary breast cancers in young premenopausal women.

Authors:  Wei-Tse Yang; Mark Dryden; Kristine Broglio; Michael Gilcrease; Shaheenah Dawood; Peter J Dempsey; Vicente Valero; Gabriel Hortobagyi; Deann Atchley; Banu Arun
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2007-11-17       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  Estrogen receptor-negative invasive breast cancer: imaging features of tumors with and without human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 overexpression.

Authors:  Yingbing Wang; Debra M Ikeda; Balasubramanian Narasimhan; Teri A Longacre; Richard J Bleicher; Sunita Pal; Roger J Jackman; Stefanie S Jeffrey
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-01-07       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: meta-analysis of surgical outcomes.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Robin Turner; Monica Morrow
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 12.969

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.