Login Register Cart 0
Generic placeholder image

Current Medical Imaging

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 1573-4056
ISSN (Online): 1875-6603

Back
Journal Home About Journal Editorial Board Journal Insight Current Issue Volumes/Issues
Subscribe
Research Article

Breast MRI for Evaluating Residual Tumor Size Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Clinicopathologic Factors and MRI Imaging Features Affecting its Accuracy

Author(s): Jin Young Park, Young Seon Kim* and Seung Eun Lee

Volume 18, Issue 8, 2022

Published on: 24 March, 2022

Article ID: e171121198012 Pages: 7

DOI: 10.2174/1573405617666211117141057

Price: $65

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the study was to investigate the accuracy of breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) for evaluating residual tumor size following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (NAC) and to identify clinicopathologic and MRI features affecting its accuracy.

Materials and Methods: We retrospectively assessed 109 women who underwent preoperative Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced (DCE) MRI following NAC and subsequent surgery between April 2016 and August 2020. Preoperative MRI features, including Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon characteristics, size of residual enhancing lesion, tumor shrinkage pattern, and clinicopathologic features, were investigated, and MRI and pathology findings were compared.

Results: Residual tumor size on MRI showed high agreement with residual invasive tumor size on pathologic examination (ICC, 0.808, p<0.001). The residual tumor size measured by MRI and final pathologic size were concordant in 63/109 cases (57.8%), while MRI overestimated the size in 35/109 cases (32.1%). For estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative tumors, MRI tended to underestimate the residual tumor size compared with HER2-positive cancers (p=0.002) and triple-negative cancers (p=0.12). On MRI, tumors with concentric shrinkage patterns after NAC showed less size discrepancy with final pathologic tumor size than those with non-concentric patterns (p=0.026).

Conclusion: In ER-positive/HER2-negative cancers, MRI tends to underestimate the residual tumor size, compared to in other subtypes. Tumors with concentric shrinkage patterns after NAC showed less MRI/pathology size discrepancy.

Keywords: Breast cancer, magnetic resonance imaging, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, tumor subtype, residual tumor size, breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS).

Graphical Abstract

[1]
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68(6): 394-424.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492] [PMID: 30207593]
[2]
Lai HW, Chen CJ, Lin YJ, et al. Does breast magnetic resonance imaging combined with conventional imaging modalities decrease the rates of surgical margin involvement and reoperation?: A case- control comparative analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016; 95(22): e3810.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000003810] [PMID: 27258520]
[3]
Kaufmann M, Hortobagyi GN, Goldhirsch A, et al. Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: An update. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24(12): 1940-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.02.6187] [PMID: 16622270]
[4]
King TA, Morrow M. Surgical issues in patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2015; 12(6): 335-43.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.63] [PMID: 25850554]
[5]
Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: The CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet 2014; 384(9938): 164-72.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62422-8] [PMID: 24529560]
[6]
Marinovich ML, Macaskill P, Irwig L, et al. Agreement between MRI and pathologic breast tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and comparison with alternative tests: Individual patient data meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 2015; 15: 662.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1664-4] [PMID: 26449630]
[7]
Marinovich ML, Houssami N, Macaskill P, et al. Meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging in detecting residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013; 105(5): 321-33.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djs528] [PMID: 23297042]
[8]
D’Orsi CJSE, Mendelson EB. ACR BI-RADS Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology 2013.
[9]
Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: Experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 1991; 19(5): 403-10.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.1991.tb00229.x] [PMID: 1757079]
[10]
Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College Of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28(16): 2784-95.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.25.6529] [PMID: 20404251]
[11]
Kim SY, Cho N, Park IA, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI for evaluating residual tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Radiology 2018; 289(2): 327-34.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018172868] [PMID: 30152744]
[12]
Chen JH, Bahri S, Mehta RS, et al. Impact of factors affecting the residual tumor size diagnosed by MRI following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in comparison to pathology. J Surg Oncol 2014; 109(2): 158-67.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jso.23470] [PMID: 24166728]
[13]
Brem RF, Ioffe M, Rapelyea JA, et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma: Detection with mammography, sonography, MRI, and breast-specific gamma imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192(2): 379-83.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.3827] [PMID: 19155397]
[14]
DB K. Breast imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2007.
[15]
Cheng Q, Huang J, Liang J, et al. The diagnostic performance of DCE-MRI in evaluating the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Front Oncol 2020; 10(93): 93.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.00093] [PMID: 32117747]
[16]
Li W, Newitt DC, Gibbs J, et al. Predicting breast cancer response to neoadjuvant treatment using multi-feature MRI: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL. NPJ Breast Cancer 2020; 6(1): 63.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41523-020-00203-7] [PMID: 33298938]
[17]
Moon HG, Han W, Ahn SK, et al. Breast cancer molecular phenotype and the use of HER2-targeted agents influence the accuracy of breast MRI after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg 2013; 257(1): 133-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182686bd9] [PMID: 22968080]
[18]
Bouzón A, Acea B, Soler R, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of MRI to evaluate tumour response and residual tumour size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Radiol Oncol 2016; 50(1): 73-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/raon-2016-0007] [PMID: 27069452]
[19]
Eom HJ, Cha JH, Choi WJ, Chae EY, Shin HJ, Kim HH. Predictive clinicopathologic and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI findings for tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017; 208(6): W225-30.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17125] [PMID: 28350486]

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
Article Metrics
36
1
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy