Top

Published in:

01-07-2021 | Breast Cancer | Clinical trial

Prediction of pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: comparison of diagnostic performances of dedicated breast PET, whole-body PET, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI

Authors: Yukiko Tokuda, Masahiro Yanagawa, Yuka Fujita, Keiichiro Honma, Tomonori Tanei, Masafumi Shimoda, Tomohiro Miyake, Yasuto Naoi, Seung Jin Kim, Kenzo Shimazu, Seiki Hamada, Noriyuki Tomiyama

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the diagnostic performance of ring-type dedicated breast PET (dbPET), whole-body PET (WBPET), and DCE-MRI for predicting pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC).

Methods

This prospective study included 29 women with histologically proven breast cancer on needle biopsy between July 2016 and July 2019 (age: mean 55 years; range 35–78). Patients underwent WBPET followed by ring-type dbPET and DCE-MRI pre- and post-NAC for preoperative evaluation. pCR was defined as an invasive tumor that disappeared in the breast. Standardized uptake values corrected for lean body mass (SULpeak) were calculated for dbPET and WBPET scans. Maximum tumor length was measured in DCE-MRI images.

Reduction rates were calculated for quantitative evaluation. Two radiologists independently evaluated the qualitative findings. Reduction rates and qualitative findings were compared between the pCR (n = 7) and non-pCR (n = 22) groups for each modality. Differences in quantitative and qualitative data between the two groups were analyzed statistically.

Results

Significant differences were observed in the reduction rates of dbPET and DCE-MRI (P = 0.01 and 0.03, respectively) between the two groups. Univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses revealed that SULpeak reduction rates in WBPET and dbPET (P = 0.02 and P = 0.01, respectively) and in dbPET (odds ratio, 16.00; 95% CI 1.57–162.10; P = 0.01) were significant indicators associated with pCR, respectively. No between-group differences were observed in qualitative findings in the three modalities.

Conclusion

SULpeak reduction rate of dbPET > 82% was an independent indicator associated with pCR after NAC in breast cancer.

Available only for authorised users

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2020) Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 70:7–30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21590CrossRefPubMed

Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD et al (2008) Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol 26:778ee85. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.15.0235CrossRef

von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU et al (2012) Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol 30:1796–1804. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.38.8595CrossRef

Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M et al (2014) Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet 384:164–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62422-8CrossRefPubMed

Yuan Y, Chen XS, Liu SY, Shen KW (2010) Accuracy of MRI in prediction of pathologic complete remission in breast cancer after preoperative therapy: a metaanalysis. AJR AmJ Roentrenol 195:260–268. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.3908CrossRef

Hylton NM, Blume JD, Bernreuter WK et al (2012) Locally advanced breast cancer: MR imaging for prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy—results from ACRIN 6657/I-SPY TRIAL. Radiology 263:663–672. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12110748CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Negrão EMS, Bitencourt AGV, de Souza JA, Marques EF (2019) Accuracy of breast magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a study of 310 cases at a cancer center. Radiol Bras 52:299–304. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-3984.2018.0149CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Fowler AM (2014) A molecular approach to breast imaging. J Nucl Med 55:177e80. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.113.126102CrossRef

Boellaard R (2009) Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis. J Nucl Med 50(Suppl 1):11S-20S. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.057182CrossRefPubMed

10.

Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026CrossRef

11.

Tateishi U, Miyake M, Nagaoka T et al (2012) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: prediction of pathologic response with PET/CT and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging–prospective assessment. Radiology 263:53–63. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12111177CrossRefPubMed

12.

Riedl CC, Pinker K, Ulaner GA et al (2017) Comparison of FDG-PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT for monitoring therapy response in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:1428–1437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3703-7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Kitajima K, Miyoshi Y, Yamano T, Odawara S, Higuchi T, Yamakado K (2018) Assessment of tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer using MRI and FDG-PET/CT-RECIST 1.1 vs. PERCIST 1.0. Nagoya J Med Sci 80:183–197. https://doi.org/10.18999/nagjms.80.2.183CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 50(Suppl 1):122S-150S. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.057307CrossRefPubMed

15.

D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA (2013) ACR BI-RADS Atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system, 5th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA

16.

García Hernández T, Vicedo González A, Ferrer Rebolleda J et al (2016) Performance evaluation of a high resolution dedicated breast PET scanner. Med Phys 43:2261. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4945271CrossRefPubMed

17.

Nishimatsu K, Nakamoto Y, Miyake KK et al (2017) Higher breast cancer conspicuity on dbPET compared to WB-PET/CT. Eur J Radiol 90:138–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.02.046CrossRefPubMed

18.

Satoh Y, Motosugi U, Imai M, Onishi H (2020) Comparison of dedicated breast positron emission tomography and whole-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography images: a common phantom study. Ann Nucl Med 34:119–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-019-01422-0CrossRefPubMed

19.

Caprio MG, Cangiano A, Imbriaco M et al (2010) Dual-time-point [18F]-FDG PET/CT in the diagnostic evaluation of suspicious breast lesions. La Radiol Med 115:215–224CrossRef

20.

Kim HO, Kim BS, Kang SY et al (2020) Metabolic changes in breast cancer on dual-time-point 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging according to primary tumor uptake and background parenchymal enhancement. Ann Nucl Med 34:942–951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-020-01525-zCrossRefPubMed

21.

Sasada S, Masumoto N, Goda N et al (2018) Dedicated breast PET for detecting residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in operable breast cancer: a prospective cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol 44:444–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2018.01.014CrossRefPubMed

22.

Koyasu H, Goshima S, Noda Y et al (2019) The feasibility of dedicated breast PET for the assessment of residual tumor after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Jpn J Radiol 37:81–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-018-0785-5CrossRefPubMed

23.

Rauch GM, Adrada BE, Kuerer HM, van la Parra RF, Leung JW, Yang WT (2017) Multimodality imaging for evaluating response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208:290–299. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17223CrossRefPubMed

24.

Dose-Schwarz J, Tiling R, Avril-Sassen S et al (2010) Assessment of residual tumour by FDG-PET: conventional imaging and clinical examination following primary chemotherapy of large and locally advanced breast cancer. Br J Cancer 102:35–41. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605427CrossRefPubMed

25.

Abdel Razek AA, Gaballa G, Denewer A, Tawakol I (2010) Diffusion weighted MR imaging of the breast. Acad Radiol 17:382–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2009.10.014CrossRefPubMed

26.

Abdel Razek AAK, Zaky M, Bayoumi D, Taman S, Abdelwahab K, Alghandour R (2019) Diffusion tensor imaging parameters in differentiation recurrent breast cancer from post-operative changes in patients with breast-conserving surgery. Eur J Radiol 111:76–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.12.022CrossRefPubMed

27.

Razek AA, Lattif MA, Denewer A, Farouk O, Nada N (2016) Assessment of axillary lymph nodes in patients with breast cancer with diffusion-weighted MR imaging in combination with routine and dynamic contrast MR imaging. Breast Cancer 23:525–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-015-0598-7CrossRefPubMed

28.

Grimm LJ, Mazurowski MA (2020) Breast cancer radiogenomics: current status and future directions. Acad Radiol 27:39–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2019.09.012CrossRefPubMed

29.

Le EPV, Wang Y, Huang Y, Hickman S, Gilbert FJ (2019) Artificial intelligence in breast imaging. Clin Radiol 74:357–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2019.02.006CrossRefPubMed

Title: Prediction of pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: comparison of diagnostic performances of dedicated breast PET, whole-body PET, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI
Authors: Yukiko Tokuda
Masahiro Yanagawa
Yuka Fujita
Keiichiro Honma
Tomonori Tanei
Masafumi Shimoda
Tomohiro Miyake
Yasuto Naoi
Seung Jin Kim
Kenzo Shimazu
Seiki Hamada
Noriyuki Tomiyama
Publication date: 01-07-2021
Publisher: Springer US
Keywords: Breast Cancer
Breast Cancer
Positron Emission Tomography
Cytostatic Therapy
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 1/2021
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-021-06179-7

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Evaluation of endocrine resistance using ESR1 genotyping of circulating tumor cells and plasma DNA

Single arm, phase two study of low-dose metronomic eribulin in metastatic breast cancer

Male and female breast cancer: the two faces of the same genetic susceptibility coin

Variations in breast cancer surgical treatment and timing: determinants and disparities

Reply to the letter on sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer

Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy use in early stage breast cancer during the covid-19 pandemic

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer