The American Journal of Surgery
Volume 199, Issue 4 , Pages 477-484 , April 2010

Accuracy of ultrasonography and mammography in predicting pathologic response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer

  • Jason D. Keune, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Division of Health Behavior Research, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
    • ,
  • Donna B. Jeffe, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medicine, Division of Health Behavior Research, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
    • The Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
    • ,
  • Mario Schootman, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medicine, Division of Health Behavior Research, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
    • The Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
    • ,
  • Abigail Hoffman, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA
    • ,
  • William E. Gillanders, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Division of Health Behavior Research, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
    • The Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
    • ,
  • Rebecca L. Aft, M.D., Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Division of Health Behavior Research, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
    • The Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
    • John Cochran Veterans Hospital, St Louis, MO, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author: Tel.: 314-747-0063; fax: 314-454-5509

Received 24 November 2008 ,Revised 31 March 2009

References 

  1. Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Smith R, et al. International expert panel on the use of primary (preoperative) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: review and recommendations. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2600–2608
  2. Wolff AC, Davidson NE. Primary systemic therapy in operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:1558–1569
  3. Makris A, Powles TJ, Ashley SE, et al. A reduction in the requirements for mastectomy in a randomized trial of neoadjuvant chemoendocrine therapy in primary breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 1998;9:1179–1184
  4. Rouzier R, Mathieu MC, Sideris L, et al. Breast-conserving surgery after neoadjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy for large breast tumors. Cancer. 2004;101:918–925
  5. van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ, Julien JP, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy in primary operable breast cancer: results from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 10902. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:4224–4237
  6. Wolmark N, Wang J, Mamounas E, et al. 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 Monogr. 2001;30:96–102
  7. Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N, et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:2672–2685
  8. Kuerer HM, Newman LA, Smith TL, et al. Clinical course of breast cancer patients with complete pathologic primary tumor and axillary lymph node response to doxorubicin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:460–469
  9. Cance WG, Carey LA, Calvo BF, et al. Long-term outcome of neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced breast carcinoma: effective clinical downstaging allows breast preservation and predicts outstanding local control and survival. Ann Surg. 2002;236:295–3
  10. Carey LA, Metzger R, Dees EC, et al. American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor-node-metastasis stage after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and breast cancer outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1137–1142
  11. Mauri D, Pavlidis N, Ioannidis JP. Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant systemic treatment in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:188–194
  12. Reitsamer R, Peintinger F, Prokop E, Hitzl W. Pathological complete response rates comparing 3 versus 6 cycles of epidoxorubicin and docetaxel in the neoadjuvant setting of patients with stage II and III breast cancer. Anticancer Drugs. 2005;16:867–870
  13. Denis F, Desbiez-Bourcier AV, Chapiron C, et al. Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging underestimates residual disease following neoadjuvant docetaxel based chemotherapy for breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004;30:1069–1076
  14. Fiorentino C, Berruti A, Bottini A, et al. Accuracy of mammography and echography versus clinical palpation in the assessment of response to primary chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with operable disease. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001;69:143–151
  15. Forouhi P, Walsh JS, Anderson TJ, Chetty U. Ultrasonography as a method of measuring breast tumour size and monitoring response to primary systemic treatment. Br J Surg. 1994;81:223–225
  16. Herrada J, Iyer R, Atkinson E, et al. Relative value of physical examination, mammography, and breast sonography in evaluating the size of the primary tumor and regional lymph node metastases in women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 1997;9:1565–1569
  17. Londero V, Bazzocchi M, Del Frate C, et al. Locally advanced breast cancer: comparison of mammography, sonography and MR imaging in evaluation of residual disease in women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:1371–1379
  18. Moskovic E, Mansi J, King D, et al. Mammography in the assessment of response to medical treatment of large primary breast cancer. Clin Radiol. 1993;47:339–344
  19. Rosen EL, Blackwell KL, Baker JA, et al. Accuracy of MRI in the detection of residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:1275–1282
  20. Vinnicombe SJ, MacVicar AD, Guy RL, et al. Primary breast cancer: mammographic changes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with pathologic correlation. Radiology. 1996;198:333–340
  21. Yeh E, Slanetz P, Kopans DB, et al. Prospective comparison of mammography, sonography, and MRI in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for palpable breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:868–877
  22. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004;233:830–849
  23. Bosch AM, Kessels AG, Beets GL, et al. Preoperative estimation of the pathological breast tumour size by physical examination, mammography and ultrasound: a prospective study on 105 invasive tumours. Eur J Radiol. 2003;48:285–292
  24. Hieken TJ, Harrison J, Herreros J, Velasco JM. Correlating sonography, mammography, and pathology in the assessment of breast cancer size. Am J Surg. 2001;182:351–354
  25. Kald BA, Boiesen P, Ronnow K, et al. Preoperative assessment of small tumours in women with breast cancer. Scand J Surg. 2005;94:15–20
  26. Madjar H, Ladner HA, Sauerbrei W, et al. Preoperative staging of breast cancer by palpation, mammography and high-resolution ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1993;3:185–190
  27. Yang WT, Lam WW, Cheung H, et al. Sonographic, magnetic resonance imaging, and mammographic assessments of preoperative size of breast cancer. J Ultrasound Med. 1997;16:791–797
  28. Sinn HP, Schmid H, Junkermann H, et al. Histologic regression of breast cancer after primary (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 1994;54:552–558
  29. El-Didi MH, Moneer MM, Khaled HM, Makarem S. Pathological assessment of the response of locally advanced breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and its implications for surgical management. Surg Today. 2000;30:249–254
  30. Huber S, Medl M, Vesely M, et al. Ultrasonographic tissue characterization in monitoring tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer (work in progress). J Ultrasound Med. 2000;19:677–686
  31. Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin JB. Bias, prevalence and kappa. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46:423–429
  32. Hoehler FK. Bias and prevalence effects on kappa viewed in terms of sensitivity and specificity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:499–503
  33. Landis JR, Koch GG. An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics. 1977;33:363–374
  34. Davidson NE, Morrow M. Sometimes a great notion—an assessment of neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:159–161
  35. Buchholz TA, Tucker SL, Masullo L, et al. Predictors of local-regional recurrence after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and mastectomy without radiation. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:17–23
  36. Chen AM, Meric-Bernstam F, Hunt KK, et al. Breast conservation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer. 2005;103:689–695
  37. Pain JA, Ebbs SR, Hern RP, et al. Assessment of breast cancer size: a comparison of methods. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1992;18:44–48
  38. Golshan M, Fung BB, Wiley E, et al. Prediction of breast cancer size by ultrasound, mammography and core biopsy. Breast. 2004;13:265–271
  39. Warren R, Bobrow L, Earl H, et al. Can breast MRI help in the management of women with breast cancer treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy?. Br J Cancer. 2004;90:1349–1360
  40. Loehberg CR, Lux MP, Ackermann S, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: which diagnostic procedures can be used?. Anticancer Res. 2005;25:2519–2525
  41. Fornage B, Toubas O, Morel M. Clinical, mammographic, and sonographic determination of preoperative breast cancer size. Cancer. 1987;60:765–771
  42. Helvie MA, Joynt LK, Cody RL, et al. Locally advanced breast carcinoma: accuracy of mammography versus clinical examination in the prediction of residual disease after chemotherapy. Radiology. 1996;198:327–332
  43. Moneer M, El-Didi M, Khaled H. Breast conservative surgery: is it appropriate for locally advanced breast cancer following downstaging by neoadjuvant chemotherapy? (A pathological assessment). Breast. 1999;8:315–319
  44. Sauven P. The surgical management of patients following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38:2371–2374
  45. Kuerer HM, Singletary SE, Buzdar AU, et al. Surgical conservation planning after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage II and operable stage III breast carcinoma. Am J Surg. 2001;182:601–608
  46. Cocconi G, Di Blasio B, Alberti G, et al. Problems in evaluating response of primary breast cancer to systemic therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1984;4:309–313
  47. Huber S, Wagner M, Zuna I, et al. Locally advanced breast carcinoma: evaluation of mammography in the prediction of residual disease after induction chemotherapy. Anticancer Res. 2000;20:553–558
  48. Seymour MT, Moskovic EC, Walsh G, et al. Ultrasound assessment of residual abnormalities following primary chemotherapy for breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1997;76:371–376
  49. Tardivon AA, Ollivier L, El Khoury C, Thibault F. Monitoring therapeutic efficacy in breast carcinomas. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:2549–2558
  50. Esserman L, Hylton N, Yassa L, et al. Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of breast cancer: evidence for improved preoperative staging. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:110–119
  51. Akazawa K, Tamaki Y, Taguchi T, et al. Preoperative evaluation of residual tumor extent by three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast J. 2006;12:130–137
  52. von Minckwitz G, Costa SD, Eiermann W, et al. Maximized reduction of primary breast tumor size using preoperative chemotherapy with doxorubicin and docetaxel. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1999–2005
  53. Peintinger F, Kuerer HM, Anderson K, et al. Accuracy of the combination of mammography and sonography in predicting tumor response in breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:1443–1449

 The Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center is supported in part by Cancer Center Support Grant P-30 CA91842 from the National Cancer Institute (Bethesda, MD).

PII: S0002-9610(09)00258-X

doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.03.012

The American Journal of Surgery
Volume 199, Issue 4 , Pages 477-484 , April 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution