Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Accuracy of the Combination of Mammography and Sonography in Predicting Tumor Response in Breast Cancer Patients After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Residual tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an important consideration in surgical planning. We examined the accuracy of the combination of mammography and sonography in predicting pathologic residual tumor size.

Methods

Tumor size was evaluated by physical examination, mammography, and sonography at diagnosis and before surgery in 162 breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Agreement between the predicted and the pathologic responses and the predicted and the pathologic tumor sizes was calculated. The effect of invasive lobular carcinoma, high nuclear grade, hormone receptor positivity, and the presence of an extensive intraductal component on the accuracy of mammography and sonography in predicting pathologic residual tumor size was analyzed.

Results

Forty-two patients (25.9%) had a pathologic complete response (pCR). Overall agreement between predicted and pathologic responses was 53% for physical examination, 67% for mammography plus sonography, and 63% for physical examination plus mammography and sonography. The sensitivity of mammography and sonography in predicting pCR was 78.6%, and the specificity was 92.5%; the accuracy was 88.9%. Residual tumor size determined by mammography and sonography correlated with pathologic residual tumor size (r = .662); pathologic tumor size was within .5 cm of predicted in 69.1% of patients. Multivariate analysis showed that pathologic residual tumor size was underestimated for lobular carcinoma and overestimated for poorly differentiated tumors.

Conclusions

The combination of mammography and sonography has a high accuracy in predicting pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Agreement of residual tumor size in mammography and sonography with pathologic residual tumor size was moderate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

FIG. 1.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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; 16:2672–85

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Newman LA, Buzdar AU, Singletary SE, et al. A prospective trial of preoperative chemotherapy in resectable breast cancer: predictors of breast-conservation therapy feasibility. Ann Surg Oncol 2002; 9:228–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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; 182:601–8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Vlastos G, Mirza NQ, Lenert JT, et al. The feasibility of minimally invasive surgery for stage IIA, IIB, and IIIA breast carcinoma patients after tumor downstaging with induction chemotherapy. Cancer 2000; 88:1417–24

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chagpar AB, Middleton LP, Sahin AA, et al. Accuracy of physical examination, ultrasonography, and mammography in predicting residual pathologic tumor size in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg 2006; 243:257–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pierce L, Adler D, Helvie M, et al. The use of mammography in breast preservation in locally advanced breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996; 34:571–7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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; 198:327–32

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Loehberg CR, Lux MP, Ackermann S, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: which diagnostic procedures can be used? Anticancer Res 2005; 25:2519–25

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Herrada J, Iyer RB, Atkinson EN, 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; 3:1565–9

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dershaw DD, Drossman S, Liberman L, Abramson A. Assessment of response to therapy of primary breast cancer by mammography and physical examination. Cancer 1995; 75:2093–8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fornage BD, Toubas O, Morel M. Clinical, mammographic, and sonographic determination of preoperative breast cancer size. Cancer 1987; 60:765–71

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 1981; 47:207–14

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92:205–16

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lin LI. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 1989; 45:255–68

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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; 69:143–51

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Zucali R, Salvadori B. Primary chemotherapy in surgically resectable breast cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 1995; 45:227–43

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Green MC, Buzdar AU, Smith T, et al. Weekly paclitaxel improves pathologic complete remission in operable breast cancer when compared with paclitaxel once every 3 weeks. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:5983–92

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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; 17:460–9

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bear HD, Anderson S, Brown A, et al. The effect on tumor response of adding sequential preoperative docetaxel to preoperative doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: preliminary results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:4165–74

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Buzdar AU, Ibrahim NK, Francis D, et al. Significantly higher pathologic complete remission rate after neoadjuvant therapy with trastuzumab, paclitaxel, and epirubicin chemotherapy: results of a randomized trial in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:3676–85

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Davis PL, Staiger MJ, Harris KB, et al. Breast cancer measurements with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1996; 37:1–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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; 184:868–77

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Warren RM, Bobrow LG, Earl HM, et al. Can breast MRI help in the management of women with breast cancer treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy? Br J Cancer 2004; 90:1349–60

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schott AF, Roubidoux MA, Helvie MA, et al. Clinical and radiologic assessments to predict breast cancer pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005; 92:231–8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Beresford M, Padhani AR, Goh V, Makris A. Imaging breast cancer response during neoadjuvant systemic therapy. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2005; 5:893–905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henry M. Kuerer MD, PhD.

Additional information

Presented in part at the American Society of Breast Surgeons Seventh Annual Meeting, Baltimore, Maryland, April 5–9, 2006.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Peintinger, F., Kuerer, H.M., 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 13, 1443–1449 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-006-9086-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-006-9086-9

Keywords

Navigation