Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in neoadjuvant chemotherapy monitoring: a comparison with breast magnetic resonance imaging

BackgroundNeoadjuvant-chemotherapy (NAC) is considered the standard treatment for locally advanced breast carcinomas. Accurate assessment of disease response is fundamental to increase the chances of successful breast-conserving surgery and to avoid local recurrence. The purpose of this study was to compare contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and contrast-enhanced-MRI (MRI) in the evaluation of tumor response to NAC.MethodsThis prospective study was approved by the institutional review board and written informed consent was obtained. Fifty-four consenting women with breast cancer and indication of NAC were consecutively enrolled between October 2012 and December 2014. Patients underwent both CESM and MRI before, during and after NAC. MRI was performed first, followed by CESM within 3 days. Response to therapy was evaluated for each patient, comparing the size of the residual lesion measured on CESM and MRI performed after NAC to the pathological response on surgical specimens (gold standard), independently of and blinded to the results of the other test. The agreement between measurements was evaluated using Lin’s coefficient. The agreement between measurements using CESM and MRI was tested at each step of the study, before, during and after NAC. And last of all, the variation in the largest dimension of the tumor on CESM and MRI was assessed according to the parameters set in RECIST 1.1 criteria, focusing on pathological complete response (pCR).ResultsA total of 46 patients (85%) completed the study. CESM predicted pCR better than MRI (Lin’s coefficient 0.81 and 0.59, respectively). Both methods tend to underestimate the real extent of residual tumor (mean 4.1mm in CESM, 7.5mm in MRI). The agreement between measurements using CESM and MRI was 0.96, 0.94 and 0.76 before, during and after NAC respectively. The distinction between responders and non-responders with CESM and MRI was identical for 45/46 patients. In the assessment of CR, sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 84%, respectively, for CESM, and 87% and 60% for MRI.ConclusionCESM and MRI lesion size measurements were highly correlated. CESM seems at least as reliable as MRI in assessing the response to NAC, and may be an alternative if MRI is contraindicated or its availability is limited.

[1]  V. Semiglazov.  RECIST for Response (Clinical and Imaging) in Neoadjuvant Clinical Trials in Operable Breast Cancer. , 2015, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[2]  C. Régis,et al.  Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography in routine clinical practice in 2013. , 2014, Diagnostic and interventional imaging.

[3]  L. Lin,et al.  A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. , 1989, Biometrics.

[4]  Janice S Sung,et al.  Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. , 2013, Radiology.

[5]  M. Krohn,et al.  Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: Initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size , 2013, European Radiology.

[6]  Serge Muller,et al.  Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results , 2011, European Radiology.

[7]  J. Wildberger,et al.  The role of magnetic resonance imaging in assessing residual disease and pathologic complete response in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review , 2013, Insights into Imaging.

[8]  L. Schwartz,et al.  New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[9]  John M Lewin,et al.  Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. , 2003, Radiology.

[10]  Serge Muller,et al.  Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis of breast carcinoma using contrast-enhanced digital mammography. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  Gideon Blumenthal,et al.  Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis , 2014, The Lancet.

[12]  Daniele Regge,et al.  Monitoring Response to Primary Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer using Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 2004, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[13]  Preoperative chemotherapy for women with operable breast cancer. , 2007, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[14]  Werner Jaschke,et al.  Dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) , 2015, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

[15]  Felix Diekmann,et al.  Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. , 2011, European journal of radiology.

[16]  N. Alieldin,et al.  Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: Impact of the qualitative morphology descriptors on the diagnosis of breast lesions. , 2015, European journal of radiology.

[17]  C. Kuhl.  The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. , 2007, Radiology.

[18]  Bernd Hamm,et al.  Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: Does mammography provide additional clinical benefits or can some radiation exposure be avoided? , 2014, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[19]  Roberto Orecchia,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. , 2010, European journal of cancer.

[20]  Edward Hendrick,et al.  Comparison between Breast MRI and Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography , 2015, Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research.

[21]  Felix Diekmann,et al.  Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study , 2012, Breast Cancer Research.

[22]  J. Ryś,et al.  Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography: Comparison with Conventional Mammography and Histopathology in 152 Women , 2014, Korean journal of radiology.

[23]  A. Hutcheon,et al.  A new histological grading system to assess response of breast cancers to primary chemotherapy: prognostic significance and survival. , 2003, Breast.

[24]  Ruey-Feng Chang,et al.  Evaluation of the treatment response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer using combined magnetic resonance vascular maps and apparent diffusion coefficient , 2015, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[25]  J. Wildberger,et al.  Contrast enhanced mammography: techniques, current results, and potential indications. , 2013, Clinical radiology.

[26]  A. Nitrosi,et al.  Size assessment of breast lesions by means of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system for magnetic resonance mammography , 2011, La radiologia medica.

[27]  Tae Hee Kim,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Patterns of Tumor Regression After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients: Correlation With Pathological Response Grading System Based on Tumor Cellularity , 2012, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[28]  D. Lannin,et al.  Breast tattoos for planning surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. , 2007, American journal of surgery.

[29]  W. Moon,et al.  Residual Mammographic Microcalcifications and Enhancing Lesions on MRI After Neoadjuvant Systemic Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Breast Cancer: Correlation with Histopathologic Residual Tumor Size , 2016, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[30]  E. S. Pearson,et al.  THE USE OF CONFIDENCE OR FIDUCIAL LIMITS ILLUSTRATED IN THE CASE OF THE BINOMIAL , 1934 .

[31]  C. Kuhl.  Current status of breast MR imaging. Part 2. Clinical applications. , 2007, Radiology.

[32]  D. Taylor,et al.  Contrast‐enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and contrast enhanced MRI (CEMRI): Patient preferences and tolerance , 2015, Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology.

[33]  J. Wildberger,et al.  The Quality of Tumor Size Assessment by Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography and the Benefit of Additional Breast MRI , 2015, Journal of Cancer.