Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound for prediction of residual tumor size in early breast cancer within the ADAPT subtrials.
Adult
Aged
Breast Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Middle Aged
Neoadjuvant Therapy
Neoplasm, Residual
Predictive Value of Tests
Receptor, ErbB-2
/ metabolism
Receptors, Estrogen
/ metabolism
Receptors, Progesterone
/ metabolism
Tumor Burden
Ultrasonography, Mammary
Breast cancer
Magnetic resonance imaging
Neoadjuvant therapy
Residual tumor size
Ultrasound
Journal
Breast cancer research : BCR
ISSN: 1465-542X
Titre abrégé: Breast Cancer Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100927353
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 03 2021
18 03 2021
Historique:
received:
30
07
2020
accepted:
24
02
2021
entrez:
19
3
2021
pubmed:
20
3
2021
medline:
4
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Prediction of histological tumor size by post-neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was evaluated in different breast cancer subtypes. Imaging was performed after 12-week NAT in patients enrolled into three neoadjuvant WSG ADAPT subtrials. Imaging performance was analyzed for prediction of residual tumor measuring ≤10 mm and summarized using positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values. A total of 248 and 588 patients had MRI and ultrasound, respectively. Tumor size was over- or underestimated by < 10 mm in 4.4% and 21.8% of patients by MRI and in 10.2% and 15.8% by ultrasound. Overall, NPV (proportion of correctly predicted tumor size ≤10 mm) of MRI and ultrasound was 0.92 and 0.83; PPV (correctly predicted tumor size > 10 mm) was 0.52 and 0.61. MRI demonstrated a higher NPV and lower PPV than ultrasound in hormone receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive and in HR-/HER2+ tumors. Both methods had a comparable NPV and PPV in HR-/HER2- tumors. In HR+/HER2+ and HR-/HER2+ breast cancer, MRI is less likely than ultrasound to underestimate while ultrasound is associated with a lower risk to overestimate tumor size. These findings may help to select the most optimal imaging approach for planning surgery after NAT. Clinicaltrials.gov , NCT01815242 (registered on March 21, 2013), NCT01817452 (registered on March 25, 2013), and NCT01779206 (registered on January 30, 2013).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Prediction of histological tumor size by post-neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was evaluated in different breast cancer subtypes.
METHODS
Imaging was performed after 12-week NAT in patients enrolled into three neoadjuvant WSG ADAPT subtrials. Imaging performance was analyzed for prediction of residual tumor measuring ≤10 mm and summarized using positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values.
RESULTS
A total of 248 and 588 patients had MRI and ultrasound, respectively. Tumor size was over- or underestimated by < 10 mm in 4.4% and 21.8% of patients by MRI and in 10.2% and 15.8% by ultrasound. Overall, NPV (proportion of correctly predicted tumor size ≤10 mm) of MRI and ultrasound was 0.92 and 0.83; PPV (correctly predicted tumor size > 10 mm) was 0.52 and 0.61. MRI demonstrated a higher NPV and lower PPV than ultrasound in hormone receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive and in HR-/HER2+ tumors. Both methods had a comparable NPV and PPV in HR-/HER2- tumors.
CONCLUSIONS
In HR+/HER2+ and HR-/HER2+ breast cancer, MRI is less likely than ultrasound to underestimate while ultrasound is associated with a lower risk to overestimate tumor size. These findings may help to select the most optimal imaging approach for planning surgery after NAT.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Clinicaltrials.gov , NCT01815242 (registered on March 21, 2013), NCT01817452 (registered on March 25, 2013), and NCT01779206 (registered on January 30, 2013).
Identifiants
pubmed: 33736679
doi: 10.1186/s13058-021-01413-y
pii: 10.1186/s13058-021-01413-y
pmc: PMC7977310
doi:
Substances chimiques
Receptors, Estrogen
0
Receptors, Progesterone
0
ERBB2 protein, human
EC 2.7.10.1
Receptor, ErbB-2
EC 2.7.10.1
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01779206', 'NCT01817452', 'NCT01815242']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
36Références
BMC Cancer. 2015 Oct 08;15:662
pubmed: 26449630
Trials. 2013 Aug 19;14:261
pubmed: 23958221
Insights Imaging. 2013 Apr;4(2):163-75
pubmed: 23359240
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Mar;184(3):868-77
pubmed: 15728611
Ann Oncol. 2017 Nov 1;28(11):2768-2772
pubmed: 28945833
J Surg Oncol. 2007 Nov 1;96(6):474-80
pubmed: 17640031
Breast. 2014 Oct;23(5):526-37
pubmed: 25034931
Ann Surg Oncol. 2011 Oct;18(11):3160-3
pubmed: 21947594
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018 Jun 1;110(6):628-637
pubmed: 29228315
Breast Cancer Res. 2019 Jan 31;21(1):19
pubmed: 30704493
Ann Surg Oncol. 2011 Aug;18(8):2150-7
pubmed: 21301969
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Sep 10;35(26):3046-3054
pubmed: 28682681
Breast. 2018 Jun;39:19-23
pubmed: 29518677
Ann Oncol. 2006 May;17 Suppl 5:v158-64
pubmed: 16807447
Breast Cancer. 2011 Jul;18(3):152-60
pubmed: 21086082
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004 Dec;30(10):1069-76
pubmed: 15522553
J Surg Oncol. 2014 Feb;109(2):158-67
pubmed: 24166728
Eur J Cancer. 2016 Jan;52:67-76
pubmed: 26650831
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013 Mar 6;105(5):321-33
pubmed: 23297042
Br J Cancer. 2013 Sep 17;109(6):1528-36
pubmed: 23963140
Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Nov;20(12):3823-30
pubmed: 23780381
Ann Oncol. 2009 Apr;20(4):636-41
pubmed: 19179551
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Jun;210(6):1376-1385
pubmed: 29708782
Scand J Surg. 2017 Mar;106(1):68-73
pubmed: 26929290