Assessing residual cancer cells using MRI and US after preoperative chemotherapy in primary breast cancer to omit surgery
Background Enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography (US) are used to assess residual lesions after preoperative chemotherapy before surgery. However, residual lesion assessments based on preoperative imaging often differ from postoperative pathologic diagnoses. We retrospectivel...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) Japan), 2018-09, Vol.25 (5), p.583-589 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 589 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 583 |
container_title | Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) |
container_volume | 25 |
creator | Iwase, Madoka Sawaki, Masataka Hattori, Masaya Yoshimura, Akiyo Ishiguro, Junko Kotani, Haruru Gondo, Naomi Adachi, Yayoi Kataoka, Ayumi Onishi, Sakura Sugino, Kayoko Iwata, Hiroji |
description | Background
Enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography (US) are used to assess residual lesions after preoperative chemotherapy before surgery. However, residual lesion assessments based on preoperative imaging often differ from postoperative pathologic diagnoses. We retrospectively reviewed the accuracy of preoperative residual lesion assessments, including ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) cases to find criteria for cases in which surgery can be omitted.
Methods
We reviewed 201 patients who received preoperative chemotherapy and surgery in our hospital from January 2013 to November 2016. Presurgical evaluations regarding the possible existence of residual lesions, and clinical Complete Response (cCR) or non-cCR, were compared with postoperative pathological diagnoses.
Results
Of the 201 patients, 52 were diagnosed with cCR, and 39 with pathological complete response (pCR). Predictions for residual lesions were 86.4% sensitive, 76.9% specific, and 84.6% accurate. When patients were divided into 4 groups by estrogen receptor (ER) and HER2 status, sensitivity in each group was ER
+
/HER2
−
: 91.4%; ER
−
/HER2
−
: 94.1%; ER
+
/HER2
+
: 78.6%; and ER
−
/HER2
+
: 78.5%. Of the 22 patients preoperatively assessed with cCR, but diagnosed with non-pCR, the median invasive residual tumor size was 2 mm (range 0–46 mm); 5 patients (22.7%) had only DCIS.
Conclusions
Predicting residual lesions after preoperative chemotherapy by using MRI and US is a reasonable strategy. However, current methods are inadequate for identifying patients who can omit surgery; therefore, a new strategy for detecting small tumors in these patients is needed. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s12282-018-0856-6 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2022127412</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A712280109</galeid><sourcerecordid>A712280109</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c435t-e9d27eca74037fbdc77c48f99c150c609be1603d6f28deda19fc6d87a7c4d8863</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kV1rFDEUhgdRbK3-AG8k4I03U5PMbJK5XIofhYqg9jpkk5Ntykyy5mQK--_NOFtBEMlFPt7nHE7et2leM3rJKJXvkXGueEuZaqnaiFY8ac6ZUrTtedc9reeup61QQp01LxDvKe07ScXz5owPgg1yo86b4xYREEPckwwY3GxGYk20kImFcUQy_9a-fLsmJjpy-50YX6p4yJAOkE0JD0DsHUyp3NXr4UhCrGKYTD6SXQaD5bFfSSRNoRCc8x7y8WXzzJsR4dVpv2huP374cfW5vfn66fpqe9PavtuUFgbHJVgje9pJv3NWStsrPwyWbagVdNgBE7RzwnPlwBk2eCuckqZiTinRXTTv1r6HnH7OgEVPAZe_mQhpRs0p54zLnvGKvl3RvRlBh-hTycYuuN7KxWvK6FCpy39QdTmYgk0RfKjvfxWwtcDmhJjB65NBmlG9BKnXIHUNUi9B6mXqN6ep590E7k_FY3IV4CuAVYrVUH2f5hyrk__p-gt5u6k6</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2022127412</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessing residual cancer cells using MRI and US after preoperative chemotherapy in primary breast cancer to omit surgery</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Iwase, Madoka ; Sawaki, Masataka ; Hattori, Masaya ; Yoshimura, Akiyo ; Ishiguro, Junko ; Kotani, Haruru ; Gondo, Naomi ; Adachi, Yayoi ; Kataoka, Ayumi ; Onishi, Sakura ; Sugino, Kayoko ; Iwata, Hiroji</creator><creatorcontrib>Iwase, Madoka ; Sawaki, Masataka ; Hattori, Masaya ; Yoshimura, Akiyo ; Ishiguro, Junko ; Kotani, Haruru ; Gondo, Naomi ; Adachi, Yayoi ; Kataoka, Ayumi ; Onishi, Sakura ; Sugino, Kayoko ; Iwata, Hiroji</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography (US) are used to assess residual lesions after preoperative chemotherapy before surgery. However, residual lesion assessments based on preoperative imaging often differ from postoperative pathologic diagnoses. We retrospectively reviewed the accuracy of preoperative residual lesion assessments, including ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) cases to find criteria for cases in which surgery can be omitted.
Methods
We reviewed 201 patients who received preoperative chemotherapy and surgery in our hospital from January 2013 to November 2016. Presurgical evaluations regarding the possible existence of residual lesions, and clinical Complete Response (cCR) or non-cCR, were compared with postoperative pathological diagnoses.
Results
Of the 201 patients, 52 were diagnosed with cCR, and 39 with pathological complete response (pCR). Predictions for residual lesions were 86.4% sensitive, 76.9% specific, and 84.6% accurate. When patients were divided into 4 groups by estrogen receptor (ER) and HER2 status, sensitivity in each group was ER
+
/HER2
−
: 91.4%; ER
−
/HER2
−
: 94.1%; ER
+
/HER2
+
: 78.6%; and ER
−
/HER2
+
: 78.5%. Of the 22 patients preoperatively assessed with cCR, but diagnosed with non-pCR, the median invasive residual tumor size was 2 mm (range 0–46 mm); 5 patients (22.7%) had only DCIS.
Conclusions
Predicting residual lesions after preoperative chemotherapy by using MRI and US is a reasonable strategy. However, current methods are inadequate for identifying patients who can omit surgery; therefore, a new strategy for detecting small tumors in these patients is needed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1340-6868</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1880-4233</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s12282-018-0856-6</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29619758</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Tokyo: Springer Japan</publisher><subject>Cancer ; Cancer Research ; Carcinoma, Ductal ; Chemotherapy ; Comparative analysis ; Estrogen ; Health aspects ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Medical research ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Medicine, Experimental ; Neoadjuvant therapy ; Oncology ; Original Article ; Surgery ; Surgical Oncology ; Ultrasound imaging</subject><ispartof>Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2018-09, Vol.25 (5), p.583-589</ispartof><rights>The Japanese Breast Cancer Society 2018</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2018 Springer</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c435t-e9d27eca74037fbdc77c48f99c150c609be1603d6f28deda19fc6d87a7c4d8863</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c435t-e9d27eca74037fbdc77c48f99c150c609be1603d6f28deda19fc6d87a7c4d8863</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4423-4023</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12282-018-0856-6$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12282-018-0856-6$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924,41487,42556,51318</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29619758$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Iwase, Madoka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sawaki, Masataka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hattori, Masaya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoshimura, Akiyo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ishiguro, Junko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kotani, Haruru</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gondo, Naomi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adachi, Yayoi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kataoka, Ayumi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Onishi, Sakura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sugino, Kayoko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iwata, Hiroji</creatorcontrib><title>Assessing residual cancer cells using MRI and US after preoperative chemotherapy in primary breast cancer to omit surgery</title><title>Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)</title><addtitle>Breast Cancer</addtitle><addtitle>Breast Cancer</addtitle><description>Background
Enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography (US) are used to assess residual lesions after preoperative chemotherapy before surgery. However, residual lesion assessments based on preoperative imaging often differ from postoperative pathologic diagnoses. We retrospectively reviewed the accuracy of preoperative residual lesion assessments, including ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) cases to find criteria for cases in which surgery can be omitted.
Methods
We reviewed 201 patients who received preoperative chemotherapy and surgery in our hospital from January 2013 to November 2016. Presurgical evaluations regarding the possible existence of residual lesions, and clinical Complete Response (cCR) or non-cCR, were compared with postoperative pathological diagnoses.
Results
Of the 201 patients, 52 were diagnosed with cCR, and 39 with pathological complete response (pCR). Predictions for residual lesions were 86.4% sensitive, 76.9% specific, and 84.6% accurate. When patients were divided into 4 groups by estrogen receptor (ER) and HER2 status, sensitivity in each group was ER
+
/HER2
−
: 91.4%; ER
−
/HER2
−
: 94.1%; ER
+
/HER2
+
: 78.6%; and ER
−
/HER2
+
: 78.5%. Of the 22 patients preoperatively assessed with cCR, but diagnosed with non-pCR, the median invasive residual tumor size was 2 mm (range 0–46 mm); 5 patients (22.7%) had only DCIS.
Conclusions
Predicting residual lesions after preoperative chemotherapy by using MRI and US is a reasonable strategy. However, current methods are inadequate for identifying patients who can omit surgery; therefore, a new strategy for detecting small tumors in these patients is needed.</description><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Cancer Research</subject><subject>Carcinoma, Ductal</subject><subject>Chemotherapy</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Estrogen</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Medicine, Experimental</subject><subject>Neoadjuvant therapy</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical Oncology</subject><subject>Ultrasound imaging</subject><issn>1340-6868</issn><issn>1880-4233</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kV1rFDEUhgdRbK3-AG8k4I03U5PMbJK5XIofhYqg9jpkk5Ntykyy5mQK--_NOFtBEMlFPt7nHE7et2leM3rJKJXvkXGueEuZaqnaiFY8ac6ZUrTtedc9reeup61QQp01LxDvKe07ScXz5owPgg1yo86b4xYREEPckwwY3GxGYk20kImFcUQy_9a-fLsmJjpy-50YX6p4yJAOkE0JD0DsHUyp3NXr4UhCrGKYTD6SXQaD5bFfSSRNoRCc8x7y8WXzzJsR4dVpv2huP374cfW5vfn66fpqe9PavtuUFgbHJVgje9pJv3NWStsrPwyWbagVdNgBE7RzwnPlwBk2eCuckqZiTinRXTTv1r6HnH7OgEVPAZe_mQhpRs0p54zLnvGKvl3RvRlBh-hTycYuuN7KxWvK6FCpy39QdTmYgk0RfKjvfxWwtcDmhJjB65NBmlG9BKnXIHUNUi9B6mXqN6ep590E7k_FY3IV4CuAVYrVUH2f5hyrk__p-gt5u6k6</recordid><startdate>20180901</startdate><enddate>20180901</enddate><creator>Iwase, Madoka</creator><creator>Sawaki, Masataka</creator><creator>Hattori, Masaya</creator><creator>Yoshimura, Akiyo</creator><creator>Ishiguro, Junko</creator><creator>Kotani, Haruru</creator><creator>Gondo, Naomi</creator><creator>Adachi, Yayoi</creator><creator>Kataoka, Ayumi</creator><creator>Onishi, Sakura</creator><creator>Sugino, Kayoko</creator><creator>Iwata, Hiroji</creator><general>Springer Japan</general><general>Springer</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4423-4023</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20180901</creationdate><title>Assessing residual cancer cells using MRI and US after preoperative chemotherapy in primary breast cancer to omit surgery</title><author>Iwase, Madoka ; Sawaki, Masataka ; Hattori, Masaya ; Yoshimura, Akiyo ; Ishiguro, Junko ; Kotani, Haruru ; Gondo, Naomi ; Adachi, Yayoi ; Kataoka, Ayumi ; Onishi, Sakura ; Sugino, Kayoko ; Iwata, Hiroji</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c435t-e9d27eca74037fbdc77c48f99c150c609be1603d6f28deda19fc6d87a7c4d8863</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Cancer Research</topic><topic>Carcinoma, Ductal</topic><topic>Chemotherapy</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Estrogen</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Medicine, Experimental</topic><topic>Neoadjuvant therapy</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical Oncology</topic><topic>Ultrasound imaging</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Iwase, Madoka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sawaki, Masataka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hattori, Masaya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoshimura, Akiyo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ishiguro, Junko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kotani, Haruru</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gondo, Naomi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adachi, Yayoi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kataoka, Ayumi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Onishi, Sakura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sugino, Kayoko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iwata, Hiroji</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Iwase, Madoka</au><au>Sawaki, Masataka</au><au>Hattori, Masaya</au><au>Yoshimura, Akiyo</au><au>Ishiguro, Junko</au><au>Kotani, Haruru</au><au>Gondo, Naomi</au><au>Adachi, Yayoi</au><au>Kataoka, Ayumi</au><au>Onishi, Sakura</au><au>Sugino, Kayoko</au><au>Iwata, Hiroji</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessing residual cancer cells using MRI and US after preoperative chemotherapy in primary breast cancer to omit surgery</atitle><jtitle>Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)</jtitle><stitle>Breast Cancer</stitle><addtitle>Breast Cancer</addtitle><date>2018-09-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>583</spage><epage>589</epage><pages>583-589</pages><issn>1340-6868</issn><eissn>1880-4233</eissn><abstract>Background
Enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography (US) are used to assess residual lesions after preoperative chemotherapy before surgery. However, residual lesion assessments based on preoperative imaging often differ from postoperative pathologic diagnoses. We retrospectively reviewed the accuracy of preoperative residual lesion assessments, including ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) cases to find criteria for cases in which surgery can be omitted.
Methods
We reviewed 201 patients who received preoperative chemotherapy and surgery in our hospital from January 2013 to November 2016. Presurgical evaluations regarding the possible existence of residual lesions, and clinical Complete Response (cCR) or non-cCR, were compared with postoperative pathological diagnoses.
Results
Of the 201 patients, 52 were diagnosed with cCR, and 39 with pathological complete response (pCR). Predictions for residual lesions were 86.4% sensitive, 76.9% specific, and 84.6% accurate. When patients were divided into 4 groups by estrogen receptor (ER) and HER2 status, sensitivity in each group was ER
+
/HER2
−
: 91.4%; ER
−
/HER2
−
: 94.1%; ER
+
/HER2
+
: 78.6%; and ER
−
/HER2
+
: 78.5%. Of the 22 patients preoperatively assessed with cCR, but diagnosed with non-pCR, the median invasive residual tumor size was 2 mm (range 0–46 mm); 5 patients (22.7%) had only DCIS.
Conclusions
Predicting residual lesions after preoperative chemotherapy by using MRI and US is a reasonable strategy. However, current methods are inadequate for identifying patients who can omit surgery; therefore, a new strategy for detecting small tumors in these patients is needed.</abstract><cop>Tokyo</cop><pub>Springer Japan</pub><pmid>29619758</pmid><doi>10.1007/s12282-018-0856-6</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4423-4023</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1340-6868 |
ispartof | Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2018-09, Vol.25 (5), p.583-589 |
issn | 1340-6868 1880-4233 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2022127412 |
source | SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Cancer Cancer Research Carcinoma, Ductal Chemotherapy Comparative analysis Estrogen Health aspects Magnetic resonance imaging Medical research Medicine Medicine & Public Health Medicine, Experimental Neoadjuvant therapy Oncology Original Article Surgery Surgical Oncology Ultrasound imaging |
title | Assessing residual cancer cells using MRI and US after preoperative chemotherapy in primary breast cancer to omit surgery |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T14%3A16%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessing%20residual%20cancer%20cells%20using%20MRI%20and%20US%20after%20preoperative%20chemotherapy%20in%20primary%20breast%20cancer%20to%20omit%20surgery&rft.jtitle=Breast%20cancer%20(Tokyo,%20Japan)&rft.au=Iwase,%20Madoka&rft.date=2018-09-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=583&rft.epage=589&rft.pages=583-589&rft.issn=1340-6868&rft.eissn=1880-4233&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s12282-018-0856-6&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA712280109%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2022127412&rft_id=info:pmid/29619758&rft_galeid=A712280109&rfr_iscdi=true |