L Corke1,2, L Luzhna3, K Willemsma4, C Illmann5, M Mcdermott2, C Wilson6, C Simmons1,3, N LeVasseur7,8,9. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 2. Applied Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada. 3. Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 4. Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 5. Department of Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 6. Department of Radiology, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 7. Department of Medical Oncology, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada. nathalie.levasseur@bccancer.bc.ca. 8. Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. nathalie.levasseur@bccancer.bc.ca. 9. Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, British Columbia Cancer, 600 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 4E6, Canada. nathalie.levasseur@bccancer.bc.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the increasing use of neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) for patients with early-stage breast cancer (ESBC), adequate clinical staging is essential to inform treatment. While the use of MRI with NAT has been proposed to help with accuracy of pre-treatment clinical staging, its impact in clinical practice remains controversial. METHODS: A prospective institutional database of patients with ESBC treated with NAT between May 2012 and December 2020 was analyzed in order to compare the management of patients who received an MRI prior to NAT to those who did not. The indications for MRI and correlation of MRI findings to conventional breast imaging were evaluated. The impact of MRI on management was compared between the MRI and non-MRI groups. RESULTS: A total of 530 patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 186 (35.1%) had an MRI and 344 (64.9%) did not. The most frequent indication for MRI was the determination of disease extent (54.5%). Patients who had an MRI prior to neoadjuvant treatment were significantly more likely to be younger (47 years versus 57 years; p < 0.001) and have multifocal disease (32.3% versus 22.1%; p < 0.05). When compared to conventional imaging, MRI reported a greater extent of disease in the breast (37.6%), more nodal involvement (18.8%), and multifocal disease (15.1%). Additional diagnostic interventions were advised in 52.2% of patients who underwent MRI. Rates of mastectomies were greater in the MRI group (80.0% versus 58.9%; p < 0.05) in addition to more axillary dissections (28.0% versus 17.4%; p < 0.01). Rates of locoregional recurrences were low in both groups, with similar disease-free survival outcomes at 5 years. CONCLUSION: MRI identified significantly more disease in contrast to conventional imaging and lead to more aggressive surgical management. Prospective studies evaluating the role of MRI before NAT and its impact on long-term outcomes are needed.
BACKGROUND: With the increasing use of neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) for patients with early-stage breast cancer (ESBC), adequate clinical staging is essential to inform treatment. While the use of MRI with NAT has been proposed to help with accuracy of pre-treatment clinical staging, its impact in clinical practice remains controversial. METHODS: A prospective institutional database of patients with ESBC treated with NAT between May 2012 and December 2020 was analyzed in order to compare the management of patients who received an MRI prior to NAT to those who did not. The indications for MRI and correlation of MRI findings to conventional breast imaging were evaluated. The impact of MRI on management was compared between the MRI and non-MRI groups. RESULTS: A total of 530 patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 186 (35.1%) had an MRI and 344 (64.9%) did not. The most frequent indication for MRI was the determination of disease extent (54.5%). Patients who had an MRI prior to neoadjuvant treatment were significantly more likely to be younger (47 years versus 57 years; p < 0.001) and have multifocal disease (32.3% versus 22.1%; p < 0.05). When compared to conventional imaging, MRI reported a greater extent of disease in the breast (37.6%), more nodal involvement (18.8%), and multifocal disease (15.1%). Additional diagnostic interventions were advised in 52.2% of patients who underwent MRI. Rates of mastectomies were greater in the MRI group (80.0% versus 58.9%; p < 0.05) in addition to more axillary dissections (28.0% versus 17.4%; p < 0.01). Rates of locoregional recurrences were low in both groups, with similar disease-free survival outcomes at 5 years. CONCLUSION: MRI identified significantly more disease in contrast to conventional imaging and lead to more aggressive surgical management. Prospective studies evaluating the role of MRI before NAT and its impact on long-term outcomes are needed.
Authors: A V Chudgar; E F Conant; S P Weinstein; B M Keller; M Synnestvedt; P Yamartino; E S McDonald Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2017-03-17 Impact factor: 2.350
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
Authors: Angela DeMichele; Douglas Yee; Donald A Berry; Kathy S Albain; Christopher C Benz; Judy Boughey; Meredith Buxton; Stephen K Chia; Amy J Chien; Stephen Y Chui; Amy Clark; Kirsten Edmiston; Anthony D Elias; Andres Forero-Torres; Tufia C Haddad; Barbara Haley; Paul Haluska; Nola M Hylton; Claudine Isaacs; Henry Kaplan; Larissa Korde; Brian Leyland-Jones; Minetta C Liu; Michelle Melisko; Susan E Minton; Stacy L Moulder; Rita Nanda; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Melissa Paoloni; John W Park; Barbara A Parker; Jane Perlmutter; Emanuel F Petricoin; Hope Rugo; Fraser Symmans; Debasish Tripathy; Laura J van't Veer; Rebecca K Viscusi; Anne Wallace; Denise Wolf; Christina Yau; Laura J Esserman Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jeon-Hor Chen; Byron A Feig; David J-B Hsiang; John A Butler; Rita S Mehta; Shadfar Bahri; Orhan Nalcioglu; Min-Ying Su Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Zheng Zhang; David C Newitt; Jessica E Gibbs; Thomas L Chenevert; Mark A Rosen; Patrick J Bolan; Helga S Marques; Justin Romanoff; Lisa Cimino; Bonnie N Joe; Heidi R Umphrey; Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Basak Dogan; Karen Oh; Hiroyuki Abe; Jennifer S Drukteinis; Laura J Esserman; Nola M Hylton Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 29.146
Authors: Juliana M Mello; Flavia Sarvacinski; Flavia C Schaefer; Daniel S Ercolani; Nathalia R Lobato; Yasmine C Martins; Guilherme Zwetsch; Fernando P Bittelbrunn; Charles F Ferreira; Andrea P Damin Journal: Cureus Date: 2022-10-05