Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Ultrasonography in Predicting Infiltrating Residual Disease after Preoperative Chemotherapy in Stage II–III Breast Cancer

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

This study was designed to evaluate the accuracy of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography (US) in predicting the extent of breast residual disease after preoperative chemotherapy.

Methods

Patients with stage II–III invasive breast tumors who received preoperative chemotherapy and were imaged with post-treatment MRI were included. Histopathological verification was available for all patients. The longest diameter of residual tumor measured with MRI and US has been compared with the infiltrating residual tumor size at pathologic evaluation.

Results

A total of 108 patients were enrolled: 59 were imaged with both MRI and US (MRI group), and 49 were imaged with US only (non-MRI group). The non-MRI group was enrolled as an external control to avoid possible bias in the selection of patients. In the MRI group, the means of the deltas between MRI residual tumor size and pathologic size and between US and pathologic size were 0.16 cm and −0.06 cm respectively (P = not significant). Overall, a discrepancy limited in the interval from −0.5 cm to +0.5 cm compared with the pathologic size was observed in 54% and 51% of the patients with MRI and US, respectively (P = not significant). The linear correlation between the radiological measurement and pathologic tumor size was r = 0.53 for MRI and r = 0.66 for breast US. In the non-MRI group, the mean of the deltas between US residual tumor size and pathologic size was 0.06 cm, and the linear correlation was r = 0.79.

Conclusions

In this series of patients, MRI and US do not show significant differences in predicting the breast residual infiltrating tumor after preoperative chemotherapy.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bonadonna G, Veronesi U, Brambilla C, 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 

  2. Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E, et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:2483–93.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Mauri D, Pavlidis N, Ioannidis JP. Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant systemic treatment in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:188–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hieken TJ, Harrison J, Herreros J, Velasco JM. Correlating sonography, mammography, and pathology in the assessment of breast cancer size. Am J Surg. 2001;182:351–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bosch AM, Kessels AG, Beets GL, Rupa JD, Koster D, van Engelshoven JM, von Meyenfeldt MF. Preoperative estimation of the pathological breast tumour size by physical examination, mammography and ultrasound: a prospective study on 105 invasive tumours. Eur J Radiol. 2003;48:285–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Golshan M, Fung BB, Wiley E, Wolfman J, Rademaker A, Morrow M. Prediction of breast cancer size by ultrasound, mammography and core biopsy. Breast. 2004;13:265–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Grimsby GM, Gray R, Dueck A, et al. Is there concordance of invasive breast cancer pathologic tumor size with magnetic resonance imaging? Am J Surg. 2009;198:500–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Esserman L, Hylton N, Yassa L, Barclay J, Frankel S, Sickles E. Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of breast cancer: evidence for improved preoperative staging. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:110–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 

  10. 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. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:1193–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wasser K, Sinn HP, Fink, et al. Accuracy of tumor size measurement in breast cancer using MRI is influenced by histological regression induced by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:1213–23.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Yeh E, Slanetz P, Kopans DB, et al. Prospective comparison of mammography, sonography, and MRI in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for palpable breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:868–77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Balu-Maestro C, Chapellier C, Bleuse A, Chanalet I, Chauvel C, Largillier R. Imaging in evaluation of response to neoadjuvant breast cancer treatment benefits of MRI. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2002;72:145–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Weatherall PT, Evans GF, Metzger GJ, Saborrian MH, Leitch AM. MRI vs. histologic measurement of breast cancer following chemotherapy: comparison with x-ray mammography and palpation. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;13:868–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Segara D, Krop IE, Garber JE, et al. Does MRI predict pathologic tumor response in women with breast cancer undergoing preoperative chemotherapy? J Surg Oncol. 2007;96:474–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Denis F, Desbiez-Bourcier AV, Chapiron C, Arbion F, Body G, Brunereau L. Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging underestimates residual disease following neoadjuvant docetaxel based chemotherapy for breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004;30:1069–76.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen JH, Feig B, Agrawal G, 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 

  18. Schott AF, Roubidoux MA, Helvie MA, et al. Clinical and radiologic assessments to predict breast cancer pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005;92:231–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rieber A, Brambs HJ, Gabelmann A, Heilmann V, Kreienberg R, Kühn T. Breast MRI for monitoring response of primary breast cancer to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:1711–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kwong MS, Chung GG, Horwath LJ, et al. Postchemotherapy MRI overestimates residual disease compared with histopathology in responders to neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced breast cancer. Cancer J. 2006;12:212–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Orel S. Who should have breast magnetic resonance imaging evaluation? Clin Oncol. 2008;26:703–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, Lord SJ, Warren RM, Dixon JM, Irwig L. Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3248–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:1296–316.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rosen EL, Blackwell KL, Baker JA, et al. Accuracy of MRI in the detection of residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:1275–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cheung YC, Chen SC, Su MY, et al. Monitoring the size and response of locally advanced breast cancers to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (weekly paclitaxel and epirubicin) with serial enhanced MRI. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2003;78:51–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kim HJ, Im YH, Han BK, et al. Accuracy of MRI for estimating residual tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer: relation to response patterns on MRI. Acta Oncol. 2007;46:996–1003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Chen JH, Mehta RS, Carpenter PM, Nalcioglu O, Su MY. Magnetic resonance imaging in predicting pathological response of triple negative breast cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5667–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Moon HG, Han W, Lee JW, et al. Age and HER2 expression status affect MRI accuracy in predicting residual tumor extent after neo-adjuvant systemic treatment. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:636–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bahri S, Chen JH, Mehta RS, et al. Residual breast cancer diagnosed by MRI in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy with and without bevacizumab. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1619–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375:563–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This study was Supported by Programma di Ricerca Regione Emilia Romagna-Università 2007–2009.

Conflict of interest statement

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oncology, Hematology and Respiratory Diseases, Modena University Hospital, Modena, Italy

    Valentina Guarneri MD, PhD, Federico Piacentini MD, Elena Barbieri MD, Maria Vittoria Dieci MD, Antonio Frassoldati MD, Roberto D’Amico MS & PierFranco Conte MD

  2. Department of Radiology, Modena University Hospital, Modena, Italy

    Annarita Pecchi MD, Rachele Battista MD, Barbara Canossi MD, Claudia Mauri MD & Pietro Torricelli MD

  3. Division of Pathology, Modena University Hospital, Modena, Italy

    Guido Ficarra MD

  4. Department of General Surgery and Surgical Specialties, Modena University Hospital, Modena, Italy

    Giovanni Tazzioli MD

Authors
  1. Valentina Guarneri MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Annarita Pecchi MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Federico Piacentini MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elena Barbieri MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maria Vittoria Dieci MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Guido Ficarra MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Giovanni Tazzioli MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Antonio Frassoldati MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Rachele Battista MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Barbara Canossi MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Claudia Mauri MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Roberto D’Amico MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. PierFranco Conte MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Pietro Torricelli MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valentina Guarneri MD, PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guarneri, V., Pecchi, A., Piacentini, F. et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Ultrasonography in Predicting Infiltrating Residual Disease after Preoperative Chemotherapy in Stage II–III Breast Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 18, 2150–2157 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1590-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1590-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation