Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Evaluation of Breast Cancer Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.
Magnetic resonance imaging
breast cancer subtypes
breast neoplasms
imaging complete response (iCR)
neoadjuvant chemotherapy
pathological complete response (pCR)
Journal
In vivo (Athens, Greece)
ISSN: 1791-7549
Titre abrégé: In Vivo
Pays: Greece
ID NLM: 8806809
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
26
11
2019
revised:
12
12
2019
accepted:
18
12
2019
entrez:
1
3
2020
pubmed:
1
3
2020
medline:
15
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of the study was to evaluate whether residual tumor assessment by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is fundamental for a successive surgical strategy. We collected 55 MRIs performed after NACT. Pathological response rate was 20%. MRI's sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 50%, 88%, 54% and 86%, respectively. We observed a high variability between the different subgroups, with high number of false positives in luminal A/B tumors. Triple negative and HER2+ tumors had almost the same specificity and sensitivity (81% and 50%). Nevertheless, in the HER2+ group, PPV was greater than that in the triple negative group (71% and 33% respectively) and the NPV of the triple negative group was greater than that of the HER2+ one (90% and 64%, respectively). Statistical analysis showed a weak but significant correlation between MRI and pathological assessment of residual tumor dimension. The present study, confirms literature data about MRI accuracy in diagnosing HER2+ and triple negative tumors, but suggests caution in case of luminal tumors' evaluation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/AIM
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the study was to evaluate whether residual tumor assessment by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is fundamental for a successive surgical strategy.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
We collected 55 MRIs performed after NACT.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Pathological response rate was 20%. MRI's sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 50%, 88%, 54% and 86%, respectively. We observed a high variability between the different subgroups, with high number of false positives in luminal A/B tumors. Triple negative and HER2+ tumors had almost the same specificity and sensitivity (81% and 50%). Nevertheless, in the HER2+ group, PPV was greater than that in the triple negative group (71% and 33% respectively) and the NPV of the triple negative group was greater than that of the HER2+ one (90% and 64%, respectively). Statistical analysis showed a weak but significant correlation between MRI and pathological assessment of residual tumor dimension.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The present study, confirms literature data about MRI accuracy in diagnosing HER2+ and triple negative tumors, but suggests caution in case of luminal tumors' evaluation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32111803
pii: 34/2/909
doi: 10.21873/invivo.11857
pmc: PMC7157867
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
909-915Informations de copyright
Copyright© 2020, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.
Références
Clin Breast Cancer. 2017 Jul;17(4):245-255
pubmed: 28209330
Springerplus. 2016 Feb 24;5:152
pubmed: 27026849
Insights Imaging. 2013 Apr;4(2):163-75
pubmed: 23359240
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 11;11(2):e0149347
pubmed: 26866475
Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2019 May - Jun;48(3):235-240
pubmed: 29685400
Springerplus. 2014 May 09;3:240
pubmed: 24892001
Tumour Biol. 2017 Mar;39(3):1010428317694540
pubmed: 28347225
Clin Breast Cancer. 2019 Feb;19(1):71-77
pubmed: 30206035
Breast. 2018 Aug;40:76-81
pubmed: 29698928
World J Clin Cases. 2015 Jul 16;3(7):607-13
pubmed: 26244152
Breast. 2015 Apr;24(2):159-65
pubmed: 25805427
In Vivo. 2014 Mar-Apr;28(2):235-41
pubmed: 24632979
J Ultrasound Med. 2017 May;36(5):901-911
pubmed: 28150325
Eur J Cancer. 2016 Jan;52:67-76
pubmed: 26650831
Acta Oncol. 2007;46(7):996-1003
pubmed: 17851879
Ann Oncol. 2017 Aug 1;28(8):1700-1712
pubmed: 28838210