Breast Cancer

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 152–160 | Cite as

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

  • Hiroshi Nakahara
  • Yukiko Yasuda
  • Eiichiro Machida
  • Yorio Maeda
  • Hidemi Furusawa
  • Kansei Komaki
  • Mayumi Funagayama
  • Mayumi Nakahara
  • Shozo Tamura
  • Futoshi Akiyama
Special Feature Imaging findings of triple-negative breast cancer

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.

Keywords

Triple negative breast cancer Neoadjuvant chemotherapy Magnetic resonance imaging Ultrasonography Pathology 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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. 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. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Booser DJ, Hortobagyi GN. Treatment of locally advanced breast cancer. Semin Oncol. 1992;19:278–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Akiyama F, Iwase H. Triple negative breast cancer: clinicopathological characteristics and treatment strategies. Breast Cancer. 2009;16:252–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sasaki Y, Tsuda H. Clinicopathological characteristics of triple-negative breast cancers. Breast Cancer. 2009;16:254–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Breast Cancer Society 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiroshi Nakahara
    • 1
  • Yukiko Yasuda
    • 1
  • Eiichiro Machida
    • 1
  • Yorio Maeda
    • 1
  • Hidemi Furusawa
    • 1
  • Kansei Komaki
    • 1
  • Mayumi Funagayama
    • 1
  • Mayumi Nakahara
    • 2
  • Shozo Tamura
    • 2
  • Futoshi Akiyama
    • 3
  1. 1.Breastopia Namba Hospital, Breastopia Medical CorporationMiyazakiJapan
  2. 2.Department of Radiology, Miyazaki Medical CollegeMiyazaki UniversityMiyazakiJapan
  3. 3.Department of PathologyCancer Institute HospitalTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations