Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2014-5
Utility of MRI and PET/CT after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: correlation with pathological response grading system based on tumor cellularity
MRI and PET/CT are useful for assessing breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC).
Purpose
To investigate the utility of MRI and PET/CT in the prediction of pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using Miller-Payne grading system in patients with breast cancer.
Material and Methods
From January 2008 to December 2010, 59 consecutive patients with pathologically proven breast cancer, who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery were retrospectively enrolled. The maximal diameter decrease rate and volume reduction rate by three-dimensional (3D) MRI and standardized uptake value (SUV) reduction rate by PET/CT were calculated and correlated with the Miller-Payne grading system using the Spearman rank correlation test. Patients with Miller-Payne grades 1 or 2 were classified into the non-responder group and patients with grades 3, 4, and 5 were in the responder group. To differentiate between responders and non-responders, receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed.
Results
The volume reduction rate was 64.87 ± 46.95, diameter decrease rate was 48.09 ± 35.02, and SUV decrease rate was 62.10 ± 32.17. Among three parameters, the volume reduction rate was most correlated with histopathologic grades of regression (ρ = 0.755, P <0.0001) followed by diameter decrease rate (ρ = 0.660, P < 0.0001), and SUV decrease rate of primary breast mass (ρ = 0.561, P = 0.0002). The area under the ROC curve (Az) value was largest in the volume reduction rate (Az = 0.9), followed by SUV decrease rate (Az = 0.875), and diameter decrease rate (Az = 0.849). The best cut-offs for differentiating responders from non-responders in the ROC curve analysis were a 50% decrease in diameter, 68.9% decrease in volume, and 60.1% decrease in SUV after NAC.
Conclusion
Volumetric measurement using 3D MRI combined with conventional diameter measurement may be more accurate to evaluate pathologic response after NAC.
FisherBBrownAMamounasE. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Clin Oncol1997; 15: 2483–2493.
2.
FisherBBryantJWolmarkN. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol1998; 16: 2672–2685.
3.
MamounasEPFisherB. Preoperative (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Semin Oncol2001; 28: 389–399.
4.
GoldhirschAGlickJHGelberRD. Meeting highlights: International Consensus Panel on the Treatment of Primary Breast Cancer. Seventh International Conference on Adjuvant Therapy of Primary Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol2001; 19: 3817–3827.
5.
BonadonnaGValagussaPBrambillaC. Primary chemotherapy in operable breast cancer: eight-year experience at the Milan Cancer Institute. J Clin Oncol1998; 16: 93–100.
6.
RouzierRExtraJMCartonM. Primary chemotherapy for operable breast cancer: incidence and prognostic significance of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after breast-conserving surgery. J Clin Oncol2001; 19: 3828–3835.
7.
WolmarkNWangJMamounasE. Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer: nine-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr2001, pp. 96–102.
8.
WeatherallPTEvansGFMetzgerGJ. MRI vs. histologic measurement of breast cancer following chemotherapy: comparison with x-ray mammography and palpation. J Magn Reson Imaging2001; 13: 868–875.
9.
RieberABrambsHJGabelmannA. Breast MRI for monitoring response of primary breast cancer to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Radiol2002; 12: 1711–1719.
10.
PartridgeSCGibbsJELuY. Accuracy of MR imaging for revealing residual breast cancer in patients who have undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Am J Roentgenol2002; 179: 1193–1199.
11.
RosenELBlackwellKLBakerJA. Accuracy of MRI in the detection of residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Am J Roentgenol2003; 181: 1275–1282.
12.
RajanRPonieckaASmithTL. Change in tumor cellularity of breast carcinoma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a variable in the pathologic assessment of response. Cancer2004; 100: 1365–1373.
13.
Balu-MaestroCChapellierCBleuseA. Imaging in evaluation of response to neoadjuvant breast cancer treatment benefits of MRI. Breast Cancer Res Treat2002; 72: 145–152.
14.
AkazawaKTamakiYTaguchiT. Preoperative evaluation of residual tumor extent by three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast J2006; 12: 130–137.
15.
AkazawaKTamakiYTaguchiT. Potential of reduction in total tumor volume measured with 3D-MRI as a prognostic factor for locally-advanced breast cancer patients treated with primary chemotherapy. Breast J2008; 14: 523–531.
16.
LyouCYChoNKimSM. Computer-aided evaluation of breast MRI for the residual tumor extent and response monitoring in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Korean J Radiol2011; 12: 34–43.
17.
ParkSHMoonWKChoN. Comparison of diffusion-weighted MR imaging and FDG PET/CT to predict pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Eur Radiol2012; 22: 18–25.
18.
KimSJKimSKLeeES. Predictive value of [18F]FDG PET for pathological response of breast cancer to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol2004; 15: 1352–1357.
19.
Schwarz-DoseJUntchMTilingR. Monitoring primary systemic therapy of large and locally advanced breast cancer by using sequential positron emission tomography imaging with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose. J Clin Oncol2009; 27: 535–541.
20.
EisenhauerEATherassePBogaertsJ. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer2009; 45: 228–247.
21.
OgstonKNMillerIDPayneS. A new histological grading system to assess response of breast cancers to primary chemotherapy: prognostic significance and survival. Breast2003; 12: 320–327.
22.
FisherERWangJBryantJ. Pathobiology of preoperative chemotherapy: findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel (NSABP) protocol B-18. Cancer2002; 95: 681–695.
23.
RieberAZeitlerHRosenthalH. MRI of breast cancer: influence of chemotherapy on sensitivity. Br J Radiol1997; 70: 452–458.
24.
WasserKSinnHPFinkC. Accuracy of tumor size measurement in breast cancer using MRI is influenced by histological regression induced by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Radiol2003; 13: 1213–1223.
25.
MumtazHDavidsonTHall-CraggsMA. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and conventional triple assessment in locally recurrent breast cancer. Br J Surg1997; 84: 1147–1151.
26.
YehESlanetzPKopansDB. Prospective comparison of mammography, sonography, and MRI in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for palpable breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol2005; 184: 868–877.
27.
KwongMSChungGGHorvathLJ. Postchemotherapy MRI overestimates residual disease compared with histopathology in responders to neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced breast cancer. Cancer J2006; 12: 212–221.
28.
KimTHKangDKYimH. Magnetic resonance imaging patterns of tumor regression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: correlation with pathological response grading system based on tumor cellularity. J Comput Assist Tomogr2012; 36: 200–206.
29.
ShinHJKimHHAhnJH. Comparison of mammography, sonography, MRI and clinical examination in patients with locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Br J Radiol2011; 84: 612–620.
ChevallierBRocheHOlivierJP. Inflammatory breast cancer. Pilot study of intensive induction chemotherapy (FEC-HD) results in a high histologic response rate. Am J Clin Oncol1993; 16: 223–228.
32.
SataloffDMMasonBAPrestipinoAJ. Pathologic response to induction chemotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the breast: a determinant of outcome. J Am Coll Surg1995; 180: 297–306.
33.
CareyLAMetzgerRDeesEC. American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor-node-metastasis stage after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and breast cancer outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst2005; 97: 1137–1142.
34.
SymmansWFPeintingerFHatzisC. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol2007; 25: 4414–4422.
35.
PartridgeSCGibbsJELuY. MRI measurements of breast tumor volume predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and recurrence-free survival. Am J Roentgenol2005; 184: 1774–1781.
36.
MartincichLMontemurroFDe RosaG. Monitoring response to primary chemotherapy in breast cancer using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Breast Cancer Res Treat2004; 83: 67–76.
37.
YoungHBaumRCremeriusU. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer1999; 35: 1773–1782.
38.
ChenXMooreMOLehmanCD. Combined use of MRI and PET to monitor response and assess residual disease for locally advanced breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Acad Radiol2004; 11: 1115–1124.
39.
DuchJFusterDMunozM. 18F-FDG PET/CT for early prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging2009; 36: 1551–1557.
40.
TateishiUMiyakeMNagaokaT. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: prediction of pathologic response with PET/CT and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging–prospective assessment. Radiology2012; 263: 53–63.
41.
ShinHJBaekHMAhnJH. Prediction of pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer using diffusion-weighted imaging and MRS. NMR Biomed2012; 25: 1349–1359.
