Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Can breast MRI and adjunctive Doppler ultrasound improve the accuracy of predicting pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

To examine the accuracy of MRI and Doppler ultrasound (US) for detecting residual tumor after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for breast cancer and evaluate whether adjunctive Doppler US improves the MRI accuracy.

Methods

We reviewed 276 invasive breast cancer cases treated with NAC. Tumors were classified into four subtypes based on estrogen receptor and HER2 status. Response to NAC was evaluated using contrast-enhanced MRI and Doppler US. Residual Doppler flow was assumed to indicate a residual tumor. MRI and Doppler findings were compared with the histopathological findings of resected specimens. Pathological complete response (pCR) was defined as neither in situ nor invasive cancer left.

Results

Of the 276 tumors, imaging complete responses were observed using MRI and Doppler US in 62 (22%) and 111 (40%), respectively, whereas pCR was achieved in 44 (16%). MRI and Doppler US predicted residual tumor with 88% and 69% sensitivity, 80% and 91% specificity, 87% and 73% accuracy, 96% and 98% PPV, and 56% and 36% NPV, respectively. The accuracies of MRI and Doppler US were significantly higher for HER2-negative than HER2-positive tumors (p < 0.001 and p = 0.043, respectively). Seven (26%) of 27 false-negative cases identified by MRI were correctly diagnosed as positives with adjunctive Doppler US.

Conclusions

Although MRI accurately detected residual tumor with 87% accuracy, this was still not sufficient to meet clinical demands and differed with tumor subtype. Adjunctive Doppler US in cases that appear to show a complete response on MRI might reduce chances of false negatives and increase the NPV of MRI for predicting residual tumor.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mieog JS, van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ. Preoperative chemotherapy for women with operable breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007:CD005002.

  2. Harbeck N, Gluz O. Neoadjuvant therapy for triple negative and HER2-positive early breast cancer. Breast. 2017;34(Suppl 1):S99–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. van Ramshorst MS, Loo CE, Groen EJ, Winter-Warnars GH, Wesseling J, van Duijnhoven F, et al. MRI predicts pathologic complete response in HER2-positive breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;164:99–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Heacock L, Lewin A, Ayoola A, Moccaldi M, Babb JS, Kim SG, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced mri evaluation of pathologic complete response in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer after HER2-targeted therapy. Acad Radiol. 2020;27:e87-93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hayashi N, Tsunoda H, Namura M, Ochi T, Suzuki K, Yamauchi H, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging combined with second-look ultrasonography in predicting pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in primary breast cancer patients. Clin Breast Cancer. 2019;19:71–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rauch GM, Adrada BE, Kuerer HM, van la Parra RF, Leung JW, Yang WT. Multimodality imaging for evaluating response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208:290–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Croshaw R, Shapiro-Wright H, Svensson E, Erb K, Julian T. Accuracy of clinical examination, digital mammogram, ultrasound, and MRI in determining postneoadjuvant pathologic tumor response in operable breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3160–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:868–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Scheel JR, Kim E, Partridge SC, Lehman CD, Rosen MA, Bernreuter WK, et al. MRI, clinical examination, and mammography for preoperative assessment of residual disease and pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: ACRIN 6657 trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210:1376–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. De Los Santos JF, Cantor A, Amos KD, Forero A, Golshan M, Horton JK, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of pathologic response in patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic treatment for operable breast cancer. Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium trial 017. Cancer. 2013;119:1776–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Namura M, Tsunoda H, Yagata H, Hayashi N, Yoshida A, Morishita E, et al. Discrepancies between pathological tumor responses and estimations of complete response by magnetic resonance imaging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy differ by breast cancer subtype. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018;18:128–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Iwase M, Sawaki M, Hattori M, Yoshimura A, Ishiguro J, Kotani H, et al. Assessing residual cancer cells using MRI and US after preoperative chemotherapy in primary breast cancer to omit surgery. Breast Cancer. 2018;25:583–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. van la Parra RF, Kuerer HM. Selective elimination of breast cancer surgery in exceptional responders: historical perspective and current trials. Breast Cancer Res. 2016;18:28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Matsuda N, Kida K, Ohde S, Suzuki K, Yamauchi H, Nakamura S, et al. Change in sonographic brightness can predict pathological response of triple-negative breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer. 2018;25:43–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lagalla R, Caruso G, Finazzo M. Monitoring treatment response with color and power Doppler. Eur J Radiol. 1998;27(Suppl 2):S149–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Huber S, Medl M, Helbich T, Taucher S, Wagner T, Rudas M, et al. Locally advanced breast carcinoma: computer assisted semiquantitative analysis of color Doppler ultrasonography in the evaluation of tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (work in progress). J Ultrasound Med. 2000;19:601–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Roubidoux MA, LeCarpentier GL, Fowlkes JB, Bartz B, Pai D, Gordon SP, et al. Sonographic evaluation of early-stage breast cancers that undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24:885–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kumar A, Singh S, Pradhan S, Shukla RC, Ansari MA, Singh TB, et al. Doppler ultrasound scoring to predict chemotherapeutic response in advanced breast cancer. World J Surg Oncol. 2007;5:99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kumar A, Srivastava V, Singh S, Shukla RC. Color Doppler ultrasonography for treatment response prediction and evaluation in breast cancer. Future Oncol. 2010;6:1265–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Singh G, Kumar P, Parshad R, Seith A, Thulkar S, Hosten N. Role of color Doppler indices in predicting disease-free survival of breast cancer patients during neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Radiol. 2010;75:e158–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kurosumi M, Akashi-Tanaka S, Akiyama F, Komoike Y, Mukai H, Nakamura S, et al. Histopathological criteria for assessment of therapeutic response in breast cancer (2007 version). Breast Cancer. 2008;15:5–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software “EZR” for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48:452–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Marinovich ML, Houssami N, Macaskill P, Sardanelli F, Irwig L, Mamounas EP, et al. Meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging in detecting residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:321–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Hayashi Y, Takei H, Nozu S, Tochigi Y, Ichikawa A, Kobayashi N, et al. Analysis of complete response by MRI following neoadjuvant chemotherapy predicts pathological tumor responses differently for molecular subtypes of breast cancer. Oncol Lett. 2013;5:83–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Loo CE, Straver ME, Rodenhuis S, Muller SH, Wesseling J, Vrancken Peeters MJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging response monitoring of breast cancer during neoadjuvant chemotherapy: relevance of breast cancer subtype. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:660–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. McGuire KP, Toro-Burguete J, Dang H, Young J, Soran A, Zuley M, et al. MRI staging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: does tumor biology affect accuracy? Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3149–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kim SY, Cho N, Park IA, Kwon BR, Shin SU, Kim SY, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI for evaluating residual tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Radiology. 2018;289:327–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ballesio L, Gigli S, Di Pastena F, Giraldi G, Manganaro L, Anastasi E, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging tumor regression shrinkage patterns after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer: correlation with tumor biological subtypes and pathological response after therapy. Tumour Biol. 2017;39:1010428317694540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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:W225–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gianni L, Pienkowski T, Im Y-H, Roman L, Tseng L-M, Liu M-C, et al. Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab in women with locally advanced, inflammatory, or early HER2-positive breast cancer (NeoSphere): a randomised multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:25–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Kuerer HM, Vrancken Peeters M, Rea DW, Basik M, De Los SJ, Heil J. Nonoperative management for invasive breast cancer after neoadjuvant systemic therapy: conceptual basis and fundamental international feasibility clinical trials. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:2855–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rauch GM, Kuerer HM, Adrada B, Santiago L, Moseley T, Candelaria RP, et al. Biopsy feasibility trial for breast cancer pathologic complete response detection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: imaging assessment and correlation endpoints. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:1953–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Baumgartner A, Tausch C, Hosch S, Papassotiropoulos B, Varga Z, Rageth C, et al. Ultrasound-based prediction of pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Breast. 2018;39:19–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kedar RP, Cosgrove DO, Smith IE, Mansi JL, Bamber JC. Breast carcinoma: measurement of tumor response to primary medical therapy with color Doppler flow imaging. Radiology. 1994;190:825–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Singh S, Pradhan S, Shukla RC, Ansari MA, Kumar A. Color Doppler ultrasound as an objective assessment tool for chemotherapeutic response in advanced breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2005;12:45–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mann RM, Cho N, Moy L. Breast MRI: state of the art. Radiology. 2019;292:520–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Santamaria G, Bargallo X, Fernandez PL, Farrus B, Caparros X, Velasco M. Neoadjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer: association of contrast-enhanced MR imaging findings, diffusion-weighted imaging findings, and tumor subtype with tumor response. Radiology. 2017;283:663–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Enago (http://www.enago.jp) for the English language review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Breast Imaging and Breast Interventional Radiology, Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, Nagaizumi, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan

    Kazuaki Nakashima, Takayoshi Uematsu & Taiyo L. Harada

  2. Division of Breast Surgery, Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan

    Kaoru Takahashi, Seiichirou Nishimura, Yukiko Tadokoro & Tomomi Hayashi

  3. Division of Breast Oncology, Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan

    Junichiro Watanabe

  4. Division of Pathology, Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan

    Takashi Sugino

  5. Clinical Research Promotion Unit, Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan

    Akifumi Notsu

Authors
  1. Kazuaki Nakashima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Takayoshi Uematsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Taiyo L. Harada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kaoru Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Seiichirou Nishimura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yukiko Tadokoro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tomomi Hayashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Junichiro Watanabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Takashi Sugino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Akifumi Notsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kazuaki Nakashima.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nakashima, K., Uematsu, T., Harada, T.L. et al. Can breast MRI and adjunctive Doppler ultrasound improve the accuracy of predicting pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy?. Breast Cancer 28, 1120–1130 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-021-01249-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-021-01249-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation