Radiologic complete response (rCR) in contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer predicts recurrence-free survival but not pathologic complete response (pCR).
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ therapeutic use
Breast
/ diagnostic imaging
Breast Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Contrast Media
/ administration & dosage
Disease-Free Survival
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Kaplan-Meier Estimate
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Mastectomy
Middle Aged
Neoadjuvant Therapy
/ methods
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
/ diagnosis
Neoplasm, Residual
Predictive Value of Tests
Preoperative Period
Prognosis
Retrospective Studies
Young Adult
Breast cancer
MRI
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Prediction of complete pathologic response
Survival
Journal
Breast cancer research : BCR
ISSN: 1465-542X
Titre abrégé: Breast Cancer Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100927353
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 01 2019
31 01 2019
Historique:
received:
27
08
2018
accepted:
20
12
2018
entrez:
2
2
2019
pubmed:
2
2
2019
medline:
23
7
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patients with early breast cancer (EBC) achieving pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) have a favorable prognosis. Breast surgery might be avoided in patients in whom the presence of residual tumor can be ruled out with high confidence. Here, we investigated the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) in predicting pCR and long-term outcome after NACT. Patients with EBC, including patients with locally advanced disease, who had undergone CE-MRI after NACT, were retrospectively analyzed (n = 246). Three radiologists, blinded to clinicopathologic data, reevaluated all MRI scans regarding to the absence (radiologic complete remission; rCR) or presence (no-rCR) of residual contrast enhancement. Clinical and pathologic responses were compared categorically using Cohen's kappa statistic. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Overall rCR and pCR (no invasive tumor in the breast and axilla (ypT0/is N0)) rates were 45% (111/246) and 29% (71/246), respectively. Only 48% (53/111; 95% CI 38-57%) of rCR corresponded to a pCR (= positive predictive value - PPV). Conversely, in 87% (117/135; 95% CI 79-92%) of patients, residual tumor observed on MRI was pathologically confirmed (= negative predictive value - NPV). Sensitivity to detect a pCR was 75% (53/71; 95% CI 63-84%), while specificity to detect residual tumor and accuracy were 67% (117/175; 95% CI 59-74%) and 69% (170/246; 95% CI 63-75%), respectively. The PPV was significantly lower in hormone-receptor (HR)-positive compared to HR-negative tumors (17/52 = 33% vs. 36/59 = 61%; P = 0.004). The concordance between rCR and pCR was low (Cohen's kappa - 0.1), however in multivariate analysis both assessments were significantly associated with RFS (rCR P = 0.037; pCR P = 0.033) and OS (rCR P = 0.033; pCR P = 0.043). Preoperative CE-MRI did not accurately predict pCR after NACT for EBC, especially not in HR-positive tumors. However, rCR was strongly associated with favorable RFS and OS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Patients with early breast cancer (EBC) achieving pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) have a favorable prognosis. Breast surgery might be avoided in patients in whom the presence of residual tumor can be ruled out with high confidence. Here, we investigated the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) in predicting pCR and long-term outcome after NACT.
METHODS
Patients with EBC, including patients with locally advanced disease, who had undergone CE-MRI after NACT, were retrospectively analyzed (n = 246). Three radiologists, blinded to clinicopathologic data, reevaluated all MRI scans regarding to the absence (radiologic complete remission; rCR) or presence (no-rCR) of residual contrast enhancement. Clinical and pathologic responses were compared categorically using Cohen's kappa statistic. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS
Overall rCR and pCR (no invasive tumor in the breast and axilla (ypT0/is N0)) rates were 45% (111/246) and 29% (71/246), respectively. Only 48% (53/111; 95% CI 38-57%) of rCR corresponded to a pCR (= positive predictive value - PPV). Conversely, in 87% (117/135; 95% CI 79-92%) of patients, residual tumor observed on MRI was pathologically confirmed (= negative predictive value - NPV). Sensitivity to detect a pCR was 75% (53/71; 95% CI 63-84%), while specificity to detect residual tumor and accuracy were 67% (117/175; 95% CI 59-74%) and 69% (170/246; 95% CI 63-75%), respectively. The PPV was significantly lower in hormone-receptor (HR)-positive compared to HR-negative tumors (17/52 = 33% vs. 36/59 = 61%; P = 0.004). The concordance between rCR and pCR was low (Cohen's kappa - 0.1), however in multivariate analysis both assessments were significantly associated with RFS (rCR P = 0.037; pCR P = 0.033) and OS (rCR P = 0.033; pCR P = 0.043).
CONCLUSION
Preoperative CE-MRI did not accurately predict pCR after NACT for EBC, especially not in HR-positive tumors. However, rCR was strongly associated with favorable RFS and OS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30704493
doi: 10.1186/s13058-018-1091-y
pii: 10.1186/s13058-018-1091-y
pmc: PMC6357474
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Types de publication
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
19Références
Br J Surg. 2017 Aug;104(9):1177-1187
pubmed: 28657689
Springerplus. 2016 Feb 24;5:152
pubmed: 27026849
Radiology. 2001 Jul;220(1):13-30
pubmed: 11425968
J Surg Oncol. 2017 Jun;115(8):924-931
pubmed: 28409837
Breast Cancer Res. 2016 Aug 05;18(1):82
pubmed: 27495815
Radiology. 2017 Jun;283(3):663-672
pubmed: 27875106
Tomography. 2016 Dec;2(4):378-387
pubmed: 28066808
Ann Oncol. 2017 Aug 1;28(8):1700-1712
pubmed: 28838210
Cancer. 2013 May 15;119(10):1776-83
pubmed: 23436342
J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2018 Jan;5(1):011011
pubmed: 29201942
Lancet. 2014 Jul 12;384(9938):164-72
pubmed: 24529560
J Am Coll Surg. 2017 Dec;225(6):740-746
pubmed: 28919579
Eur J Cancer. 2016 Dec;69:142-150
pubmed: 27821317
Clin Breast Cancer. 2017 Jul;17(4):245-255
pubmed: 28209330
J Clin Oncol. 2007 May 20;25(15):2127-32
pubmed: 17513820
Br J Cancer. 2015 Dec 1;113(11):1565-70
pubmed: 26554654
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jan;19(1):27-39
pubmed: 29242041
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Jul;164(1):99-106
pubmed: 28432515
Korean J Radiol. 2015 Sep-Oct;16(5):986-95
pubmed: 26357493
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013 Mar 6;105(5):321-33
pubmed: 23297042
Ann Surg. 2018 May;267(5):946-951
pubmed: 28549010
Ann Oncol. 2013 Sep;24(9):2278-84
pubmed: 23704196
PLoS One. 2014 Sep 23;9(9):e108405
pubmed: 25247558
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018 Mar;45(3):328-339
pubmed: 29101445
Clin Breast Cancer. 2012 Apr;12(2):110-8
pubmed: 22444717
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Feb 20;29(6):660-6
pubmed: 21220595
Eur J Radiol. 2014 Sep;83(9):1631-8
pubmed: 24938669
Eur Radiol. 2018 Jul;28(7):2986-2995
pubmed: 29380033
Tumour Biol. 2017 Mar;39(3):1010428317694540
pubmed: 28347225
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Apr 1;35(10):1049-1060
pubmed: 28135148
Clin Breast Cancer. 2018 Apr;18(2):128-134
pubmed: 28843513
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Aug;135(1):17-28
pubmed: 22476850
Radiology. 2016 Apr;279(1):44-55
pubmed: 26624971