Diagnostic Evaluation of Clinical and Radiological Findings after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer

Year 2024, Volume: 8 Issue: 1, 8 - 20, 28.04.2024

İshak Yıldızhan , Bilgin Kadri Arıbaş , Rabiye Uslu Erdemir

https://doi.org/10.29058/mjwbs.1311364

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of PET/CT and contrast-enhanced breast MRI in the evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in patients with malignant masses diagnosed by breast biopsy.
Material and Method: As of February 2017, patients diagnosed with breast cancer using tru-cut needle or automated cuttingbiopsy gunin the General Surgery Department of the Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University Medical Faculty Hospital were retrospectively screened. The study included 48 patients who underwent axillary lymph node dissection, mastectomy and received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Weperformed breast MRI, diffusion-weighted MRI and whole-body PET/CT images after chemotherapy. We noted all demographic and histopathological parameters. The presence of tumor and lymph node metastasis in the histopathological reports of the patients was accepted as the gold standard, whereas thepresence of tumor and lymph node in imaging methods (MRI and PET/CT) was accepted as positive.The latter was compared with the pathological results. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy of imaging methods in predicting neoadjuvant chemotherapy response were calculated.
Results: The mean age of the patients was 51.08±12.21 years. Residual tumor was found in pathological specimens in 85.4% of the patients whereas lymph node involvement was in 50.0%. In 35.4% of the patients, lymph node involvement was detected on MRI. The number of patients whose tumors were seenon MRI (intermediate, rapid arterial phase enhancement and type 2/3 enhancement curve) was 31 (64.6%). The number of patients whose lymph node involvements were seen on MRI was 17 (35.4%), whereas the number of patients whose lymph node involvements on PET/CT was 22 (45.8%). In predicting the presence of tumor, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value and accuracy of MRI, evaluated according to early arterial phase enhancement (intermediate, rapid arterial) and late arterial (type 2/3 enhancement curve) was calculated as 65.8%, 42.8%, 87,1%, 17,6%, and 62,5%, respectively. On PET/CT, these were 46.3%, 57.1%, 86.3%, 15.3%, and 47.9%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value and accuracy of MRI in predicting lymph node involvement were 54.1%, 83.3%, 76.4%, 64.5%, and 68.7%, respectively, whereas these were 29.1%, 95.8%, 87.5%, 57.5%, and 62.5%, respectively on PET/CT.
Conclusion: In the evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy response, MRI was found to have a higher sensitivity and PET/CT a higher specificity in tumor.Likewise, MRI was found to have a higher sensitivity and PET/CT a higher specificityin lymph node involvement. Only taken after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, we recommend use together of both MRI and PET/CT for this evaluation.

Keywords

Breast cancer, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, MRI, PET/CT, residual tumor, lymph node involvement

Meme Kanserinde Neoadjuvan Kemoterapi Sonrası Klinik ve Radyolojik Bulguların Diagnostik Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmadaki amacımız, meme biyopsisi ile tanı konulmuş malign kitlesi olan hastalarda
neoadjuvan kemoterapi yanıtının değerlendirilmesi açısından PET/BT ve kontrastlı meme MRG’nin
etkinliğini karşılaştırmaktır.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Şubat 2017’den itibaren Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit Üniversite Hastanesi’ne
başvurup tru-cut iğne veya otomatik kesici biyopsi tabancası ile meme kanseri tanısı alarak Radyoloji
Anabilim dalında değerlendirilen hastalar retrospektif olarak tarandı. Çalışmaya aksiller lenf nodu
diseksiyonu ve mastektomi yapılan, neoadjuvan kemoterapi alan, kemoterapi sonrası kontrastlı dinamik
MRG, difüzyon ağırlıklı MRG ve tüm vücut PET/BT görüntüleri olan 48 hasta dahil edildi. Hastaların
histopatolojik raporlarındaki tümör varlığı ve lenf nodu tutulumu altın standart olarak kabul edildi.
Görüntüleme yöntemlerinde (dinamik kontrastlı MRG ve PET/BT) tümör varlığı ve lenf nodu görülmesi
pozitif olarak kabul edildi ve altın standart olan patoloji sonuçları ile karşılaştırıldı.
Bulgular: Hastaların yaş ortalaması 51,08±12,21 yıl idi. Patolojik olarak hastaların %85,4’ünde rezidü
tümör, %50,0’sinde ise lenf nodu tutulumu saptandı. MRG’de erken arteriyel (orta, hızlı) ve geç arterial
(tip 2-3kontrast eğrisi) kontrastlanmaya göre tümör saptanan hasta sayısı 31 (%64,6) idi. PET/BT’de
tümör saptanan hasta sayısı 22 (%45,8) idi. MRG’de lenf nodu tutulumu saptanan hasta sayısı 17
(%35,4), PET/BT’de lenf nodu tutulumu saptanan hasta sayısı 22 (%45,8) idi. Erken arterial (orta, hızlı)
ve geç arterial (tip 2-3 kontrast eğrisi) kontrastlanmaya göre değerlendirilen MRG’nin tümör varlığını ön
görmedeki duyarlılık, özgüllük, pozitif ve negatif prediktif değeri ve doğruluğu sırasıyla %65,8, %42,8,
%87,1, %17,6, %62,5 iken, PET/BT’de ise sırasıyla %46,3, %57,1, %86,3, %15,3, %47,9 idi. MRG’nin
lenf nodu tutulumunu öngörmedeki duyarlılık, özgüllük, pozitif ve negatif prediktif değeri ve doğruluğu
sırasıyla %54,1, %83,3, %76,4, %64,5, %68,7 iken, bunlar PET/BT’de sırasıyla %29,1, %95,8, %87,5,
%57,5, %62,5 idi.
Sonuç: Neoadjuvan tedavi sonrası tümör yanıtını değerlendirmede, MRG’nin daha yüksek bir
duyarlılığa ve PET/BT’nin daha yüksek bir özgüllüğe sahip olduğu bulunmuştur. Benzer olarak, lenf
nodu tutulumunu belirlemede MRG’nin daha yüksek bir duyarlılığa ve PET/BT’nin ise daha yüksek bir
özgüllüğe sahip olduğu bulunmuştur. Yalnızca neoadjuvan tedavi sonrası çekilirse, MRG ve PET/BT’nin
her ikisinin de birlikte kullanılmasını öneriyoruz.

Keywords

Meme kanseri, neoadjuvan kemoterapi, MRG, PET/BT, rezidü tümör, lenf nodu tutulumu

Thanks

Eğitimim sırasında desteklerini esirgemeyen eşim, ailem ve hocalarıma sonsuz teşekkür ederim

References

• 1. Braunwald E, Fauci AS, Hauser SL, Longo DL, Jameson JL. Harrison’s principles of internal medicine: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc; 2005.
• 2. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71(3):209-249.
• 3. Waks AG, Winer EP. Breast cancer treatment: a review. JAMA 2019;321(3):288-300.
• 4. Cercek A, Roxburgh CSD, Strombom P, Smith JJ, Temple LKF, Nash GM, Guillem JG, Paty PB, Yaeger R, Stadler ZK, Seier K, Gonen M, Segal NH, Reidy DL, Varghese A, Shia J, Vakiani E, Wu AJ, Crane CH, Gollub MJ, Garcia-Aguilar J, Saltz LB, Weiser MR. Adoption of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer. JAMA Oncol 2018;4(6):e180071.
• 5. Gillen S, Schuster T, Meyer Zum Büschenfelde C, Friess H, Kleeff J. Preoperative/neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of response and resection percentages. PLoS Med 2010;7(4):e1000267.
• 6. Ao S, Wang Y, Song Q, Ye Y, Lyu G. Current status and future perspectives on neoadjuvant therapy in gastric cancer. Chin J Cancer Res 2021;33(2):181-192.
• 7. Haddad TC, Goetz MP. Landscape of neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2015;22(5):1408-1415.
• 8. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 2011;144(5):646-674.
• 9. Dolan RD, Laird BJA, Horgan PG, McMillan DC. The prognostic value of the systemic inflammatory response in randomised clinical trials in cancer: A systematic review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2018;132:130-137.
• 10. Abramson RG, Arlinghaus LR, Weis JA, Li X, Dula AN, Chekmenev EY, Smith SA, Miga MI, Abramson VG, Yankeelov TE. Current and emerging quantitative magnetic resonance imaging methods for assessing and predicting the response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant therapy. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) 2012;2012(4):139-154.
• 11. Belli P, Costantini M, Malaspina C, Magistrelli A, LaTorre G, Bonomo L. MRI accuracy in residual disease evaluation in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Radiol 2006;61(11):946-953.
• 12. Lucignani G, Paganelli G, Bombardieri E. The use of standardized uptake values for assessing FDG uptake with PET in oncology: a clinical perspective. Nucl Med Commun 2004;25(7):651- 656.
• 13. Quon A, Gambhir SS. FDG-PET and beyond: molecular breast cancer imaging. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(8):1664-1673.
• 14. Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Rubello D, Al-Nahhas A, Moretti JL, Espié M, Hindié E. The evolving role of PET/CT in breast cancer. Nucl Med Commun 2010;31(4):271-273.
• 15. Gil-Rendo A, Martínez-Regueira F, Zornoza G, García-Velloso MJ, Beorlegui C, Rodriguez-Spiteri N. Association between [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake and prognostic parameters in breast cancer. Br J Surg 2009;96(2):166-170.
• 16. Basu S, Chen W, Tchou J, Mavi A, Cermik T, Czerniecki B, Schnall M, Alavi A. Comparison of triple-negative and estrogen receptor-positive/progesterone receptor-positive/HER2-negative breast carcinoma using quantitative fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose/ positron emission tomography imaging parameters: a potentially useful method for disease characterization. Cancer 2008;112(5):995-1000.
• 17. You S, Kang DK, Jung YS, An YS, Jeon GS, Kim TH. Evaluation of lymph node status after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: comparison of diagnostic performance of ultrasound, MRI and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT. Br J Radiol 2015;88(1052):20150143.
• 18. Kim WH, Lee SW, Kim HJ, Chae YS, Jeong SY, Jung JH, Park HY, Lee WK. Prediction of Advanced Axillary Lymph Node Metastases (ypN2-3) Using Breast MR imaging and PET/CT after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Invasive Ductal Carcinoma Patients. Sci Rep 2018;8(1):3181.
• 19. Penault-Llorca F, Radosevic-Robin N. Biomarkers of residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2016;13(8):487-503.
• 20. Untch M, Konecny GE, Paepke S, von Minckwitz G. Current and future role of neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Breast 2014;23(5):526-537.
• 21. Liu SV, Melstrom L, Yao K, Russell CA, Sener SF. Neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. J Surg Oncol 2010;101(4):283- 291.
• 22. Shin HJ, Baek HM, Ahn JH, Baek S, Kim H, Cha JH, Kim HH. Prediction of pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer using diffusion-weighted imaging and MRS. NMR Biomed 2012;25(12):1349-1359.
• 23. Bedair R, Priest AN, Patterson AJ, McLean MA, Graves MJ, Manavaki R, Gill AB, Abeyakoon O, Griffiths JR, Gilbert FJ. Assessment of early treatment response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer using non-mono-exponential diffusion models: a feasibility study comparing the baseline and mid-treatment MRI examinations. Eur Radiol 2017;27(7):2726-2736.
• 24. Weber JJ, Jochelson MS, Eaton A, Zabor EC, Barrio AV, Gemignani ML, Pilewskie M, Van Zee KJ, Morrow M, El-Tamer M. MRI and Prediction of Pathologic Complete Response in the Breast and Axilla after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer. J Am Coll Surg 2017;225(6):740-746.
• 25. Steiman J, Soran A, McAuliffe P, Diego E, Bonaventura M, Johnson R, Ahrendt G, McGuire K. Predictive value of axillary nodal imaging by magnetic resonance imaging based on breast cancer subtype after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Surg Res 2016;204(1):237-241.
• 26. Kim EJ, Kim SH, Kang BJ, Choi BG, Song BJ, Choi JJ. Diagnostic value of breast MRI for predicting metastatic axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer patients: diffusion-weighted MRI and conventional MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 2014;32(10):1230- 1236.
• 27. Hieken TJ, Boughey JC, Jones KN, Shah SS, Glazebrook KN. Imaging response and residual metastatic axillary lymph node disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for primary breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2013;20(10):3199-3204.
• 28. Liu Q, Wang C, Li P, Liu J, Huang G, Song S. Corrigendum to "The Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT and MRI in Assessing Pathological Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis". Biomed Res Int 2016;2016:1235429.
• 29. Berriolo-Riedinger A, Touzery C, Riedinger JM, Toubeau M, Coudert B, Arnould L, Boichot C, Cochet A, Fumoleau P, Brunotte F. [18F]FDG-PET predicts complete pathological response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34(12):1915-1924.
• 30. Rousseau C, Devillers A, Sagan C, Ferrer L, Bridji B, Campion L, Ricaud M, Bourbouloux E, Doutriaux I, Clouet M, Berton-Rigaud D, Bouriel C, Delecroix V, Garin E, Rouquette S, Resche I, Kerbrat P, Chatal JF, Campone M. Monitoring of early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and III breast cancer by [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 2006;24(34):5366-5372.
• 31. Wu LM, Hu JN, Gu HY, Hua J, Chen J, Xu JR. Can diffusion- weighted MR imaging and contrast-enhanced MR imaging precisely evaluate and predict pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer? Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;135(1):17-28.
• 32. Kumar A, Kumar R, Seenu V, Gupta SD, Chawla M, Malhotra A, Mehta SN. The role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in evaluation of early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Eur Radiol 2009;19(6):1347-1357.
• 33. Andrade WP, Lima EN, Osório CA, do Socorro Maciel M, Baiocchi G, Bitencourt AG, Fanelli MF, Damascena AS, Soares FA. Can FDG-PET/CT predict early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer? Eur J Surg Oncol 2013;39(12):1358-1363.
• 34. Abedi M, Farrokh D, Shandiz Homaei F, Joulaee A, Anbiaee R, Zandi B, Gity M, Sayah HR, Abedi MS. The validity of MRI in evaluation of tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer. Iran J Cancer Prev 2013;6(1):28-35.
• 35. Baysal H, Serdaroglu AY, Ozemir IA, Baysal B, Gungor S, Erol CI, Ozsoy MS, Ekinci O, Alimoglu O. Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Positron Emission Tomography/ Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy of Breast Cancer. J Surg Res 2022;278:223- 232.
• 36. Wang Y, Zhang C, Liu J, Huang G. Is 18F-FDG PET accurate to predict neoadjuvant therapy response in breast cancer? A meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;131(2):357-369.
• 37. Park JS, Moon WK, Lyou CY, Cho N, Kang KW, Chung JK. The assessment of breast cancer response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Acta Radiol 2011;52(1):21-28.
• 38. Li H, Yao L, Jin P, Hu L, Li X, Guo T, Yang K. MRI and PET/ CT for evaluation of the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta- analysis. Breast 2018;40:106-115.
• 39. Gebhart G, Gámez C, Holmes E, Robles J, Garcia C, Cortés M, de Azambuja E, Fauria K, Van Dooren V, Aktan G, Coccia-Portugal MA, Kim SB, Vuylsteke P, Cure H, Eidtmann H, Baselga J, Piccart M, Flamen P, Di Cosimo S. 18F-FDG PET/CT for early prediction of response to neoadjuvant lapatinib, trastuzumab, and their combination in HER2-positive breast cancer: results from Neo-ALTTO. J Nucl Med 2013;54(11):1862-1868