Imaging findings for response evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives In approximately 45% of invasive breast cancer (IBC) patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is present. Recent studies suggest response of DCIS to NST. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarise and examine the c...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European radiology 2023-08, Vol.33 (8), p.5423-5435
Hauptverfasser: Ploumen, Roxanne A. W., de Mooij, Cornelis M., Gommers, Suzanne, Keymeulen, Kristien B. M. I., Smidt, Marjolein L., van Nijnatten, Thiemo J. A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 5435
container_issue 8
container_start_page 5423
container_title European radiology
container_volume 33
creator Ploumen, Roxanne A. W.
de Mooij, Cornelis M.
Gommers, Suzanne
Keymeulen, Kristien B. M. I.
Smidt, Marjolein L.
van Nijnatten, Thiemo J. A.
description Objectives In approximately 45% of invasive breast cancer (IBC) patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is present. Recent studies suggest response of DCIS to NST. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarise and examine the current literature on imaging findings for different imaging modalities evaluating DCIS response to NST. More specifically, imaging findings of DCIS pre- and post-NST, and the effect of different pathological complete response (pCR) definitions, will be evaluated on mammography, breast MRI, and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM). Methods PubMed and Embase databases were searched for studies investigating NST response of IBC, including information on DCIS. Imaging findings and response evaluation of DCIS were assessed for mammography, breast MRI, and CEM. A meta-analysis was conducted per imaging modality to calculate pooled sensitivity and specificity for detecting residual disease between pCR definition no residual invasive disease (ypT0/is) and no residual invasive or in situ disease (ypT0). Results Thirty-one studies were included. Calcifications on mammography are related to DCIS, but can persist despite complete response of DCIS. In 20 breast MRI studies, an average of 57% of residual DCIS showed enhancement. A meta-analysis of 17 breast MRI studies confirmed higher pooled sensitivity (0.86 versus 0.82) and lower pooled specificity (0.61 versus 0.68) for detection of residual disease when DCIS is considered pCR (ypT0/is). Three CEM studies suggest the potential benefit of simultaneous evaluation of calcifications and enhancement. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance Calcifications on mammography can remain despite complete response of DCIS, and residual DCIS does not always show enhancement on breast MRI and CEM. Moreover, pCR definition effects diagnostic performance of breast MRI. Given the lack of evidence on imaging findings of response of the DCIS component to NST, further research is demanded. Key Points • Ductal carcinoma in situ has shown to be responsive to neoadjuvant systemic therapy, but imaging studies mainly focus on response of the invasive tumour. • The 31 included studies demonstrate that after neoadjuvant systemic therapy, calcifications on mammography can remain despite complete response of DCIS and residual DCIS does not always show enhancement on MRI and contrast-enhanced mammography. • The definition of pCR has impact on the diagnostic p
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00330-023-09547-7
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10326113</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2797147988</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-5f2a3aa0b50b6e4504c1343c11910dc40259301f2c64f6dd7f84143163317d213</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UsuO1DAQjBCIXRZ-gAOyxIVLoP1InHBBaMVjpZW4wNnqcZwZjxJ7sJ1ZzVfxi_Qyw7Jw4NRWd1X1w1VVzzm85gD6TQaQEmoQsoa-UbrWD6pzrqSoOXTq4b33WfUk5y0A9Fzpx9WZ1CBIAc6rH1czrn1Ys9GHgWJmY0wsubyLITvm9jgtWHwMLI5sWGzBiVlM1oc4I_OBZV-W27hKDnOhWrAusR1xXCiZFUoXN7AbXzYsuIjDdtljKCwfcnGzt6xsXMLd4S3DU46olibYe3fDMAxsdgVrDDgdss9Pq0cjTtk9O8WL6tvHD18vP9fXXz5dXb6_rq3STambUaBEhFUDq9apBpTlUknLec9hsApE00vgo7CtGtth0GOn6Fq8lZLrQXB5Ub076u6W1ewGS8sknMwu-RnTwUT05u9K8BuzjnvDQYqWc0kKr04KKX5fXC5m9tm6aUI6w5KN0L2m3-i7jqAv_4Fu45JoY0J1UnYAjQRCiSPKpphzcuPdNBzMrSHM0RCGDGF-GcJoIr24v8cd5bcDCCCPgEylsHbpT-__yP4EOHbEwA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2833800530</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Imaging findings for response evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Ploumen, Roxanne A. W. ; de Mooij, Cornelis M. ; Gommers, Suzanne ; Keymeulen, Kristien B. M. I. ; Smidt, Marjolein L. ; van Nijnatten, Thiemo J. A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Ploumen, Roxanne A. W. ; de Mooij, Cornelis M. ; Gommers, Suzanne ; Keymeulen, Kristien B. M. I. ; Smidt, Marjolein L. ; van Nijnatten, Thiemo J. A.</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives In approximately 45% of invasive breast cancer (IBC) patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is present. Recent studies suggest response of DCIS to NST. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarise and examine the current literature on imaging findings for different imaging modalities evaluating DCIS response to NST. More specifically, imaging findings of DCIS pre- and post-NST, and the effect of different pathological complete response (pCR) definitions, will be evaluated on mammography, breast MRI, and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM). Methods PubMed and Embase databases were searched for studies investigating NST response of IBC, including information on DCIS. Imaging findings and response evaluation of DCIS were assessed for mammography, breast MRI, and CEM. A meta-analysis was conducted per imaging modality to calculate pooled sensitivity and specificity for detecting residual disease between pCR definition no residual invasive disease (ypT0/is) and no residual invasive or in situ disease (ypT0). Results Thirty-one studies were included. Calcifications on mammography are related to DCIS, but can persist despite complete response of DCIS. In 20 breast MRI studies, an average of 57% of residual DCIS showed enhancement. A meta-analysis of 17 breast MRI studies confirmed higher pooled sensitivity (0.86 versus 0.82) and lower pooled specificity (0.61 versus 0.68) for detection of residual disease when DCIS is considered pCR (ypT0/is). Three CEM studies suggest the potential benefit of simultaneous evaluation of calcifications and enhancement. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance Calcifications on mammography can remain despite complete response of DCIS, and residual DCIS does not always show enhancement on breast MRI and CEM. Moreover, pCR definition effects diagnostic performance of breast MRI. Given the lack of evidence on imaging findings of response of the DCIS component to NST, further research is demanded. Key Points • Ductal carcinoma in situ has shown to be responsive to neoadjuvant systemic therapy, but imaging studies mainly focus on response of the invasive tumour. • The 31 included studies demonstrate that after neoadjuvant systemic therapy, calcifications on mammography can remain despite complete response of DCIS and residual DCIS does not always show enhancement on MRI and contrast-enhanced mammography. • The definition of pCR has impact on the diagnostic performance of MRI in detecting residual disease, and when DCIS is considered pCR, pooled sensitivity was slightly higher and pooled specificity slightly lower.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0938-7994</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-09547-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37020070</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Breast cancer ; Breast carcinoma ; Diagnostic Radiology ; Diagnostic systems ; Imaging ; Internal Medicine ; Interventional Radiology ; Invasiveness ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Mammography ; Medical diagnosis ; Medical imaging ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Meta-analysis ; Neuroradiology ; Radiology ; Review ; Systematic review ; Therapy ; Ultrasound</subject><ispartof>European radiology, 2023-08, Vol.33 (8), p.5423-5435</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2023</rights><rights>2023. The Author(s).</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2023. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-5f2a3aa0b50b6e4504c1343c11910dc40259301f2c64f6dd7f84143163317d213</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-5f2a3aa0b50b6e4504c1343c11910dc40259301f2c64f6dd7f84143163317d213</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1024-3519</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/s00330-023-09547-7$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00330-023-09547-7$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27903,27904,41467,42536,51297</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37020070$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ploumen, Roxanne A. W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Mooij, Cornelis M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gommers, Suzanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keymeulen, Kristien B. M. I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smidt, Marjolein L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Nijnatten, Thiemo J. A.</creatorcontrib><title>Imaging findings for response evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><title>European radiology</title><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><description>Objectives In approximately 45% of invasive breast cancer (IBC) patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is present. Recent studies suggest response of DCIS to NST. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarise and examine the current literature on imaging findings for different imaging modalities evaluating DCIS response to NST. More specifically, imaging findings of DCIS pre- and post-NST, and the effect of different pathological complete response (pCR) definitions, will be evaluated on mammography, breast MRI, and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM). Methods PubMed and Embase databases were searched for studies investigating NST response of IBC, including information on DCIS. Imaging findings and response evaluation of DCIS were assessed for mammography, breast MRI, and CEM. A meta-analysis was conducted per imaging modality to calculate pooled sensitivity and specificity for detecting residual disease between pCR definition no residual invasive disease (ypT0/is) and no residual invasive or in situ disease (ypT0). Results Thirty-one studies were included. Calcifications on mammography are related to DCIS, but can persist despite complete response of DCIS. In 20 breast MRI studies, an average of 57% of residual DCIS showed enhancement. A meta-analysis of 17 breast MRI studies confirmed higher pooled sensitivity (0.86 versus 0.82) and lower pooled specificity (0.61 versus 0.68) for detection of residual disease when DCIS is considered pCR (ypT0/is). Three CEM studies suggest the potential benefit of simultaneous evaluation of calcifications and enhancement. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance Calcifications on mammography can remain despite complete response of DCIS, and residual DCIS does not always show enhancement on breast MRI and CEM. Moreover, pCR definition effects diagnostic performance of breast MRI. Given the lack of evidence on imaging findings of response of the DCIS component to NST, further research is demanded. Key Points • Ductal carcinoma in situ has shown to be responsive to neoadjuvant systemic therapy, but imaging studies mainly focus on response of the invasive tumour. • The 31 included studies demonstrate that after neoadjuvant systemic therapy, calcifications on mammography can remain despite complete response of DCIS and residual DCIS does not always show enhancement on MRI and contrast-enhanced mammography. • The definition of pCR has impact on the diagnostic performance of MRI in detecting residual disease, and when DCIS is considered pCR, pooled sensitivity was slightly higher and pooled specificity slightly lower.</description><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Breast carcinoma</subject><subject>Diagnostic Radiology</subject><subject>Diagnostic systems</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Interventional Radiology</subject><subject>Invasiveness</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Mammography</subject><subject>Medical diagnosis</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Neuroradiology</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Therapy</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><issn>1432-1084</issn><issn>0938-7994</issn><issn>1432-1084</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UsuO1DAQjBCIXRZ-gAOyxIVLoP1InHBBaMVjpZW4wNnqcZwZjxJ7sJ1ZzVfxi_Qyw7Jw4NRWd1X1w1VVzzm85gD6TQaQEmoQsoa-UbrWD6pzrqSoOXTq4b33WfUk5y0A9Fzpx9WZ1CBIAc6rH1czrn1Ys9GHgWJmY0wsubyLITvm9jgtWHwMLI5sWGzBiVlM1oc4I_OBZV-W27hKDnOhWrAusR1xXCiZFUoXN7AbXzYsuIjDdtljKCwfcnGzt6xsXMLd4S3DU46olibYe3fDMAxsdgVrDDgdss9Pq0cjTtk9O8WL6tvHD18vP9fXXz5dXb6_rq3STambUaBEhFUDq9apBpTlUknLec9hsApE00vgo7CtGtth0GOn6Fq8lZLrQXB5Ub076u6W1ewGS8sknMwu-RnTwUT05u9K8BuzjnvDQYqWc0kKr04KKX5fXC5m9tm6aUI6w5KN0L2m3-i7jqAv_4Fu45JoY0J1UnYAjQRCiSPKpphzcuPdNBzMrSHM0RCGDGF-GcJoIr24v8cd5bcDCCCPgEylsHbpT-__yP4EOHbEwA</recordid><startdate>20230801</startdate><enddate>20230801</enddate><creator>Ploumen, Roxanne A. W.</creator><creator>de Mooij, Cornelis M.</creator><creator>Gommers, Suzanne</creator><creator>Keymeulen, Kristien B. M. I.</creator><creator>Smidt, Marjolein L.</creator><creator>van Nijnatten, Thiemo J. A.</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1024-3519</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230801</creationdate><title>Imaging findings for response evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><author>Ploumen, Roxanne A. W. ; de Mooij, Cornelis M. ; Gommers, Suzanne ; Keymeulen, Kristien B. M. I. ; Smidt, Marjolein L. ; van Nijnatten, Thiemo J. A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-5f2a3aa0b50b6e4504c1343c11910dc40259301f2c64f6dd7f84143163317d213</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Breast carcinoma</topic><topic>Diagnostic Radiology</topic><topic>Diagnostic systems</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Interventional Radiology</topic><topic>Invasiveness</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Mammography</topic><topic>Medical diagnosis</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Neuroradiology</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Therapy</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ploumen, Roxanne A. W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Mooij, Cornelis M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gommers, Suzanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keymeulen, Kristien B. M. I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smidt, Marjolein L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Nijnatten, Thiemo J. A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ploumen, Roxanne A. W.</au><au>de Mooij, Cornelis M.</au><au>Gommers, Suzanne</au><au>Keymeulen, Kristien B. M. I.</au><au>Smidt, Marjolein L.</au><au>van Nijnatten, Thiemo J. A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Imaging findings for response evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle><stitle>Eur Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><date>2023-08-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>5423</spage><epage>5435</epage><pages>5423-5435</pages><issn>1432-1084</issn><issn>0938-7994</issn><eissn>1432-1084</eissn><abstract>Objectives In approximately 45% of invasive breast cancer (IBC) patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is present. Recent studies suggest response of DCIS to NST. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarise and examine the current literature on imaging findings for different imaging modalities evaluating DCIS response to NST. More specifically, imaging findings of DCIS pre- and post-NST, and the effect of different pathological complete response (pCR) definitions, will be evaluated on mammography, breast MRI, and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM). Methods PubMed and Embase databases were searched for studies investigating NST response of IBC, including information on DCIS. Imaging findings and response evaluation of DCIS were assessed for mammography, breast MRI, and CEM. A meta-analysis was conducted per imaging modality to calculate pooled sensitivity and specificity for detecting residual disease between pCR definition no residual invasive disease (ypT0/is) and no residual invasive or in situ disease (ypT0). Results Thirty-one studies were included. Calcifications on mammography are related to DCIS, but can persist despite complete response of DCIS. In 20 breast MRI studies, an average of 57% of residual DCIS showed enhancement. A meta-analysis of 17 breast MRI studies confirmed higher pooled sensitivity (0.86 versus 0.82) and lower pooled specificity (0.61 versus 0.68) for detection of residual disease when DCIS is considered pCR (ypT0/is). Three CEM studies suggest the potential benefit of simultaneous evaluation of calcifications and enhancement. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance Calcifications on mammography can remain despite complete response of DCIS, and residual DCIS does not always show enhancement on breast MRI and CEM. Moreover, pCR definition effects diagnostic performance of breast MRI. Given the lack of evidence on imaging findings of response of the DCIS component to NST, further research is demanded. Key Points • Ductal carcinoma in situ has shown to be responsive to neoadjuvant systemic therapy, but imaging studies mainly focus on response of the invasive tumour. • The 31 included studies demonstrate that after neoadjuvant systemic therapy, calcifications on mammography can remain despite complete response of DCIS and residual DCIS does not always show enhancement on MRI and contrast-enhanced mammography. • The definition of pCR has impact on the diagnostic performance of MRI in detecting residual disease, and when DCIS is considered pCR, pooled sensitivity was slightly higher and pooled specificity slightly lower.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>37020070</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00330-023-09547-7</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1024-3519</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1432-1084
ispartof European radiology, 2023-08, Vol.33 (8), p.5423-5435
issn 1432-1084
0938-7994
1432-1084
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10326113
source Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals
subjects Breast cancer
Breast carcinoma
Diagnostic Radiology
Diagnostic systems
Imaging
Internal Medicine
Interventional Radiology
Invasiveness
Magnetic resonance imaging
Mammography
Medical diagnosis
Medical imaging
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Meta-analysis
Neuroradiology
Radiology
Review
Systematic review
Therapy
Ultrasound
title Imaging findings for response evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T14%3A07%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Imaging%20findings%20for%20response%20evaluation%20of%20ductal%20carcinoma%20in%20situ%20in%20breast%20cancer%20patients%20treated%20with%20neoadjuvant%20systemic%20therapy:%20a%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=European%20radiology&rft.au=Ploumen,%20Roxanne%20A.%20W.&rft.date=2023-08-01&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=5423&rft.epage=5435&rft.pages=5423-5435&rft.issn=1432-1084&rft.eissn=1432-1084&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00330-023-09547-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2797147988%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2833800530&rft_id=info:pmid/37020070&rfr_iscdi=true