Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and sonography in patients receiving primary chemotherapy for breast cancer

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We compared dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) and sonography (US) for monitoring tumour size in 21 patients with breast cancer undergoing primary chemotherapy (PCT) followed by surgery. The correlation between DCE-MRI and US measurements of tumour size, defined as the product of the two major diameters, was 0.555 (P=0.009), 0.782 (P<0.001), and 0.793 (P<0.001) at baseline, and after two and four cycles of PCT, respectively. The median tumour size was significantly larger when measured by DCE-MRI than by US at baseline (1472 vs 900 mm2, P<0.001) and after two cycles of PCT (600 vs 400 mm2, P=0.009). After PCT, the median tumour size measured by the two techniques was similar (256 vs 289 mm2 for DCE-MRI and US, respectively, P=0.859). The correlation with the histopathological major tumour diameter was 0.824 (P<0.001) and 0.705 (P<0.001) for post-treatment DCE-MRI and US, respectively. Measurements of the final major tumour diameter by DCE-MRI tended to be more precise, including cases achieving a pathological complete response. Randomized trials are warranted to establish the clinical impact of the initial discrepancy in tumour size estimates between DCE-MRI and US, and the trend towards a better definition of the final tumour size provided by DCE-MRI in this clinical setting.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Buchholz TA, Hunt KK, Whitman GJ, Sahin AA, Hortobagyi GN (2003) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast carcinoma: multidisciplinary considerations of benefits and risks. Cancer 98:1150–1160. DOI 10.1002/cncr.11603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Smith R, et al (2003) International expert panel on the use of primary (preoperative) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: review and recommendations. J Clin Oncol 21:2600–2608. DOI 10.1200/JCO.2003.01.136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Herrada J, Iyer RB, Atkinson EN, Sneige N, Buzdar AU, Hortobagyi GN (1997) Relative value of physical examination, mammography, and breast sonography in evaluating the size of the primary tumor and regional lymph node metastases in women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 3:1565–1569

    Google Scholar 

  4. Vinnicombe SJ, MacVicar AD, Guy RL, Sloane JP, Powles TJ, Knee G, Husband JE (1996) Primary breast cancer: mammographic changes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with pathologic correlation. Radiology 198:333–340

    Google Scholar 

  5. Huber S, Wagner M, Zuna I, Medl M, Czembirek H, Delorme S (2000) Locally advanced breast carcinoma: evaluation of mammography in the prediction of residual disease after induction chemotherapy. Anticancer Res 20:553–558

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cocconi G, Di Blasio B, Alberti G, Bisagni G, Botti E, Peracchia G (1984) Problems in evaluating response of primary breast cancer to systemic therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 4:309–313

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sardanelli F, Lozzelli A, Fausto A (2003) MR imaging of the breast: indications, established technique, and new directions. Eur Radiol 13 [Suppl 3]:N28–N36

    Google Scholar 

  8. Esserman L, Hylton N, Yassa L, Barclay J, Frankel S, Sickles E (1999) Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of breast cancer: evidence for improved preoperative staging. J Clin Oncol 17:110–119

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Szabo BK, Aspelin P, Kristoffersen WM, Tot T, Bone B (2003) Invasive breast cancer: correlation of dynamic MR features with prognostic factors. Eur Radiol 13:2425–2435. DOI 10.1007/s00330-003-2000-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fischer DR, Baltzer P, Malich A, Wurdinger S, Freesmeyer MG, Marx C, Kaiser WA (2004) Is the “blooming sign” a promising additional tool to determine malignancy in MR mammography? Eur Radiol 14:394–401. DOI 10.1007/s00330-003-2055-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kristoffersen WM, Aspelin P, Sylvan M, Bone B (2003) Comparison of lesion size estimated by dynamic MR imaging, mammography and histopathology in breast neoplasms. Eur Radiol 13:1207–1212. DOI 10.1007/s00330-002-1718-2

    Google Scholar 

  12. Walter C, Scheidhauer K, Scharl A, et al (2003) Clinical and diagnostic value of preoperative MR mammography and FDG-PET in suspicious breast lesions. Eur Radiol 13:1651–1656. DOI 10.1007/s00330-002-1816-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Viehweg P, Rotter K, Laniado M, Lampe D, Buchmann J, Kolbl H, Heywang-Kobrunner S (2004) MR imaging of the contralateral breast in patients after breast-conserving therapy. Eur Radiol 14:402–408. DOI 10.1007/s00330-003-2086-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Goerres GW, Michel SC, Fehr MK, et al (2003) Follow-up of women with breast cancer: comparison between MRI and FDG PET. Eur Radiol 13:1635–1644. DOI 10.1007/s00330-002-1720-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rieber A, Schramm K, Helms G, et al (2003) Breast-conserving surgery and autogenous tissue reconstruction in patients with breast cancer: efficacy of MRI of the breast in the detection of recurrent disease. Eur Radiol 13:780–787. DOI 10.1007/s00330-002-1538-4

    Google Scholar 

  16. Abraham DC, Jones RC, Jones SE, et al (1996) Evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapeutic response of locally advanced breast cancer by magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 78:91–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Martincich L, Montemurro F, De Rosa G, et al (2004) Monitoring response to primary chemotherapy in breast cancer using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Breast Cancer Res Treat 83:67–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wasser K, Klein SK, Fink C, et al (2003) Evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapeutic response of breast cancer using dynamic MRI with high temporal resolution. Eur Radiol 13:80–87

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rieber A, Brambs HJ, Gabelmann A, Heilmann V, Kreienberg R, Kuhn T (2002) Breast MRI for monitoring response of primary breast cancer to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Radiol 12:1711–1719. DOI 10.1007/s00330-001-1233-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Singletary SE, Allred C, Ashley P, et al (2002) Revision of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 20:3628–3636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cheung YC, Chen SC, Su MY, et al (2003) 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 78:51–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Smith IC, Heys SD, Hutcheon AW, et al (2002) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: significantly enhanced response with docetaxel. J Clin Oncol 20:1456–1466

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kuerer HM, Singletary SE, Buzdar AU, et al (2001) Surgical conservation planning after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage II and operable stage III breast carcinoma. Am J Surg 182:601–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Esserman L, Kaplan E, Partridge S, et al (2001) MRI phenotype is associated with response to doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage III breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 8:549–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Davis PL, Staiger MJ, Harris KB, Ganott MA, Klementaviciene J, McCarty KS Jr, Tobon H (1996) Breast cancer measurements with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 37:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  26. Boetes C, Mus RD, Holland R, et al (1995) Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. Radiology 197:743–747

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hata T, Takahashi H, Watanabe K, Takahashi M, Taguchi K, Itoh T, Todo S (2004) Magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative evaluation of breast cancer: a comparative study with mammography and ultrasonography. J Am Coll Surg 198:190–197. DOI 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2003.10.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Morrow M (2004) Magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative evaluation of breast cancer: primum non nocere. J Am Coll Surg 198:240–241. DOI 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2003.10.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N, et al (1998) Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 16:2672–2685

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wolmark N, Wang J, Mamounas E, Bryant J, Fisher B (2001) Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer: nine-year results from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 30:96–102

    Google Scholar 

  31. Wasser K, Sinn HP, Fink C, et al (2003) Accuracy of tumor size measurement in breast cancer using MRI is influenced by histological regression induced by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Radiol 13:1213–1223

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kuerer HM, Newman LA, Smith TL, et al (1999) Clinical course of breast cancer patients with complete pathologic primary tumor and axillary lymph node response to doxorubicin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 17:460–469

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bear HD, Anderson S, Brown A, et al (2003) The effect on tumor response of adding sequential preoperative docetaxel to preoperative doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: preliminary results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol 21:4165–4174. DOI 10.1200/JCO.2003.12.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Warren RM, Bobrow LG, Earl HM, et al (2004) Can breast MRI help in the management of women with breast cancer treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy? Br J Cancer 90:1349–1360

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Unit of Medical Oncology, Institute for Cancer Research and Treatment (IRCC), Strada Provinciale 142, 10060, Candiolo, Torino, Italy

    Filippo Montemurro & Massimo Aglietta

  2. Unit of Diagnostic Imaging, Institute for Cancer Research and Treatment (IRCC), Strada Provinciale 142, 10060, Candiolo, Torino, Italy

    Laura Martincich, Stefano Cirillo, Vincenzo Marra & Daniele Regge

  3. Unit of Pathology, Institute for Cancer Research and Treatment (IRCC), Strada Provinciale 142, 10060, Candiolo, Torino, Italy

    Giovanni De Rosa

  4. Unit of Gynecological Oncology, Institute for Cancer Research and Treatment (IRCC), Strada Provinciale 142, 10060, Candiolo, Torino, Italy

    Nicoletta Biglia & Piero Sismondi

  5. Unit of Radiotherapy, Institute for Cancer Research and Treatment (IRCC), Strada Provinciale 142, 10060, Candiolo, Torino, Italy

    Marco Gatti

  6. Unit of Radiology, Institute for Cancer Research and Treatment (IRCC), Strada Provinciale 142, 10060, Candiolo, Torino, Italy

    Laura Martincich

Authors
  1. Filippo Montemurro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Martincich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giovanni De Rosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefano Cirillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vincenzo Marra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nicoletta Biglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marco Gatti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Piero Sismondi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Massimo Aglietta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Daniele Regge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Martincich.

Additional information

This work was accepted as a scientific presentation at the ECR 2004 meeting.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Montemurro, F., Martincich, L., De Rosa, G. et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and sonography in patients receiving primary chemotherapy for breast cancer. Eur Radiol 15, 1224–1233 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2656-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2656-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation