Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

MR and US imaging for breast cancer patients who underwent conservation surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison of triple negative breast cancer and other intrinsic subtypes

  • Special Feature
  • Imaging findings of triple-negative breast cancer
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is commonly utilized to treat operable breast cancer. The purpose of this study was to review the findings of ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in patients treated with breast conservation surgery (BCS) after NAC with a focus on intrinsic subtypes.

Methods

Eighty-six patients underwent BCS after NAC. The tumors were classified into four subgroups by receptor status. US and MR were performed before and after NAC. The tumor diameters in US and MR after NAC were examined for correlations with pathological tumor distances in the specimens from BCS after NAC.

Results

The correlation coefficient (r) of US to pathological tumor size was 0.3 in all tumors, 0.6 in HER2-type tumors, and 0.7 in triple negative breast cancers (TNBC). The correlation coefficient of tumor size in MR to pathological tumor size was 0.9 in TNBC, and other correlations were not statistically significant.

Conclusions

The correlation between tumor size in MR and pathological tumor size in triple negative breast cancers corresponded best. This information is one of the clues to selecting patients for BCS after NAC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N, Mamounas E, Brown A, Fisher ER, et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:2672–85.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bonadonna G, Veronesi U, Brambilla C, Ferrari L, Luini A, Greco M, et al. Primary chemotherapy to avoid mastectomy in tumors with diameters of three centimeters or more. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1990;82:1539–45.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Calais G, Berger C, Descamps P, Chapet S, Reynaud-Bougnoux A, Body G, et al. Conservative treatment feasibility with induction chemotherapy, surgery, and radiotherapy for patients with breast carcinoma larger than 3 cm. Cancer. 1994;74:1283–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Calais G, Descamps P, Chapet S, Turgeon V, Reynaud-Bougnoux A, Lemarie E, et al. Primary chemotherapy and radiosurgical breast-conserving treatment for patients with locally advanced operable breast cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993;26:37–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hortobagyi GN, Ames FC, Buzdar AU, Kau SW, McNeese MD, Paulus D, et al. Management of stage III primary breast cancer with primary chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy. Cancer. 1988;62:2507–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Allred DC, Harvey JM, Berardo M, Clark GM. Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer by immunohistochemical analysis. Mod Pathol. 1998;11:155–68.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Bear HD, Buzdar A, McGale P, Bonnefoi H, et al. Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: new perspectives 2006. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:1927–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gralow JR, Burstein HJ, Wood W, Hortobagyi GN, Gianni L, von Minckwitz G, et al. Preoperative therapy in invasive breast cancer: pathologic assessment and systemic therapy issues in operable disease. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:814–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Loibl S, von Minckwitz G, Raab G, Blohmer JU, Dan Costa S, Gerber B, et al. Surgical procedures after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in operable breast cancer: results of the GEPARDUO trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:1434–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, Geyer CE, Kahlenberg MS, Robidoux A, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:778–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jeruss JS, Mittendorf EA, Tucker SL, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Buchholz TA, Sahin AA, et al. Combined use of clinical and pathologic staging variables to define outcomes for breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:246–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Symmans WF, Peintinger F, Hatzis C, Rajan R, Kuerer H, Valero V, et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:4414–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen AM, Meric-Bernstam F, Hunt KK, Thames HD, Outlaw ED, Strom EA, et al. Breast conservation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer. 2005;103:689–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Beriwal S, Schwartz GF, Komarnicky L, Garcia-Young JA. Breast-conserving therapy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: long-term results. Breast J. 2006;12:159–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Garimella V, Qutob O, Fox JN, Long ED, Chaturvedi A, Turnbull LW, et al. Recurrence rates after DCE-MRI image guided planning for breast-conserving surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33:157–61.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Straver ME, Glas AM, Hannemann J, Wesseling J, van de Vijver MJ, Rutgers EJ, et al. The 70-gene signature as a response predictor for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;119:551–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L, Gatti L, Moore DT, Collichio F, et al. The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:2329–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Liedtke C, Mazouni C, Hess KR, Andre F, Tordai A, Mejia JA, et al. Response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1275–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gilles R, Guinebretiere JM, Toussaint C, Spielman M, Rietjens M, Petit JY, et al. Locally advanced breast cancer: contrast-enhanced subtraction MR imaging of response to preoperative chemotherapy. Radiology. 1994;191:633–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Partridge SC, Gibbs JE, Lu Y, Esserman LJ, Sudilovsky D, Hylton NM. Accuracy of MR imaging for revealing residual breast cancer in patients who have undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:1193–9.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Belli P, Costantini M, Malaspina C, Magistrelli A, Latorre G, Bonomo L. MRI accuracy in residual disease evaluation in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Radiol. 2006;61:946–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Londero V, Bazzocchi M, Del Frate C, Puglisi F, Di Loreto C, Francescutti G, et al. Locally advanced breast cancer: comparison of mammography, sonography and MR imaging in evaluation of residual disease in women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:1371–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yeh E, Slanetz P, Kopans DB, Rafferty E, Georgian-Smith D, Moy L, et al. Prospective comparison of mammography, sonography, and MRI in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for palpable breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:868–77.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rosen EL, Blackwell KL, Baker JA, Soo MS, Bentley RC, Yu D, et al. Accuracy of MRI in the detection of residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:1275–82.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Straver ME, Loo CE, Rutgers EJ, Oldenburg HS, Wesseling J, Vrancken Peeters MJ, et al. MRI-model to guide the surgical treatment in breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg. 2010;251:701–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Booser DJ, Hortobagyi GN. Treatment of locally advanced breast cancer. Semin Oncol. 1992;19:278–85.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Singletary SE, McNeese MD, Hortobagyi GN. Feasibility of breast-conservation surgery after induction chemotherapy for locally advanced breast carcinoma. Cancer. 1992;69:2849–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Chen JH, Feig B, Agrawal G, Yu H, Carpenter PM, Mehta RS, et al. MRI evaluation of pathologically complete response and residual tumors in breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer. 2008;112:17–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Chen JH, Feig BA, Hsiang DJ, Butler JA, Mehta RS, Bahri S, et al. Impact of MRI-evaluated neoadjuvant chemotherapy response on change of surgical recommendation in breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2009;249:448–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Akiyama F, Iwase H. Triple negative breast cancer: clinicopathological characteristics and treatment strategies. Breast Cancer. 2009;16:252–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sasaki Y, Tsuda H. Clinicopathological characteristics of triple-negative breast cancers. Breast Cancer. 2009;16:254–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Yamamoto Y, Ibusuki M, Nakano M, Kawasoe T, Hiki R, Iwase H. Clinical significance of basal-like subtype in triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2009;16:260–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Mr. Abe and Mr. Uwai in our laboratory and all the stuff in the radiological and pathological department in our hospital for preparing and managing the patient data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Breastopia Namba Hospital, Breastopia Medical Corporation, 2-112-1 Maruyama, Miyazaki, Miyazaki, 880-0052, Japan

    Hiroshi Nakahara, Yukiko Yasuda, Eiichiro Machida, Yorio Maeda, Hidemi Furusawa, Kansei Komaki & Mayumi Funagayama

  2. Department of Radiology, Miyazaki Medical College, Miyazaki University, 5200 Kihara, Kiyotake, Miyazaki, 889-1692, Japan

    Mayumi Nakahara & Shozo Tamura

  3. Department of Pathology, Cancer Institute Hospital, 3-8-31, Koto-ward, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan

    Futoshi Akiyama

Authors
  1. Hiroshi Nakahara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yukiko Yasuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eiichiro Machida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yorio Maeda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hidemi Furusawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kansei Komaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mayumi Funagayama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mayumi Nakahara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Shozo Tamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Futoshi Akiyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hiroshi Nakahara.

About this article

Cite this article

Nakahara, H., Yasuda, Y., Machida, E. et al. MR and US imaging for breast cancer patients who underwent conservation surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison of triple negative breast cancer and other intrinsic subtypes. Breast Cancer 18, 152–160 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-010-0235-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-010-0235-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation