Assessment of Tumor Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Using MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT.

IF 1.3 Q4 ONCOLOGY
Reem Yusuf AlBuainain, Fatema Yusuf Bunajem, Hussain Adnan Abdulla
{"title":"Assessment of Tumor Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Using MRI and <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/CT.","authors":"Reem Yusuf AlBuainain, Fatema Yusuf Bunajem, Hussain Adnan Abdulla","doi":"10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2024.2024-8-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been the primary treatment method for patients with local advanced breast cancer. A pathological complete response (pCR) to therapy correlates with better overall disease prognosis. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) have been widely used to monitor the response to NACT in breast cancer. The aim of this study was to assess tumor response to NACT by MRI and PET/CT, to determine which imaging modality is more accurate in detecting tumor response post NACT in breast cancer.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective review of our database revealed 34 women with breast cancer that had MRI and PET/CT performed prior to and after NACT, followed by definitive surgery. For response assessment, we calculated the difference in maximum diameter of the tumor in MRI and difference in standard uptake values in PET/CT. The correspondence rate between the imaging modalities and pCR were calculated. For the prediction of pCR, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy where analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The assessment of tumor response to NACT showed 11 cases with pCR (32%), 15 pathological partial response (44%) and eight pathological no response (24%). The correspondence rate between MRI and pathological response was 50% (17/34), compared to 65% (22/34) for PET/CT. For prediction of pCR, MRI showed higher specificity compared to PET/CT (78.2% <i>vs.</i> 73.9%, <i>p</i> = 0.024), while the accuracy of PET/CT was significantly higher (79.4% <i>vs.</i> 70.5%, <i>p</i> = 0.004). PET/CT also had a higher NPV compared to MRI (94.4% <i>vs.</i> 78.2%, <i>p</i> = 0.002). There were no differences in terms of sensitivity and PPV between MRI and PET/CT.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to MRI, PET/CT was more likely to correlate with the pathological response after NACT. For the prediction of pCR, PET/CT proved to be a more accurate imaging modality to monitor response after NACT than MRI.</p>","PeriodicalId":93996,"journal":{"name":"European journal of breast health","volume":"21 1","pages":"46-51"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11706120/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of breast health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2024.2024-8-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been the primary treatment method for patients with local advanced breast cancer. A pathological complete response (pCR) to therapy correlates with better overall disease prognosis. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) have been widely used to monitor the response to NACT in breast cancer. The aim of this study was to assess tumor response to NACT by MRI and PET/CT, to determine which imaging modality is more accurate in detecting tumor response post NACT in breast cancer.

Materials and methods: A retrospective review of our database revealed 34 women with breast cancer that had MRI and PET/CT performed prior to and after NACT, followed by definitive surgery. For response assessment, we calculated the difference in maximum diameter of the tumor in MRI and difference in standard uptake values in PET/CT. The correspondence rate between the imaging modalities and pCR were calculated. For the prediction of pCR, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy where analyzed.

Results: The assessment of tumor response to NACT showed 11 cases with pCR (32%), 15 pathological partial response (44%) and eight pathological no response (24%). The correspondence rate between MRI and pathological response was 50% (17/34), compared to 65% (22/34) for PET/CT. For prediction of pCR, MRI showed higher specificity compared to PET/CT (78.2% vs. 73.9%, p = 0.024), while the accuracy of PET/CT was significantly higher (79.4% vs. 70.5%, p = 0.004). PET/CT also had a higher NPV compared to MRI (94.4% vs. 78.2%, p = 0.002). There were no differences in terms of sensitivity and PPV between MRI and PET/CT.

Conclusion: Compared to MRI, PET/CT was more likely to correlate with the pathological response after NACT. For the prediction of pCR, PET/CT proved to be a more accurate imaging modality to monitor response after NACT than MRI.

利用MRI和18F-FDG PET/CT评估乳腺癌新辅助化疗的肿瘤反应。
目的:新辅助化疗(NACT)已成为局部晚期乳腺癌患者的主要治疗方法。对治疗的病理完全反应(pCR)与更好的整体疾病预后相关。磁共振成像(MRI)和正电子发射断层扫描/计算机断层扫描(PET/CT)已广泛用于监测乳腺癌对NACT的反应。本研究的目的是通过MRI和PET/CT评估肿瘤对NACT的反应,以确定哪种成像方式更准确地检测乳腺癌NACT后的肿瘤反应。材料和方法:对我们的数据库进行回顾性回顾,发现34名乳腺癌患者在NACT之前和之后进行了MRI和PET/CT检查,然后进行了最终手术。为了评估疗效,我们计算了MRI上肿瘤最大直径的差异和PET/CT上标准摄取值的差异。计算成像模式与pCR的对应率。对pCR预测的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值(NPV)和准确性进行分析。结果:肿瘤对NACT的反应评估显示,pCR反应11例(32%),病理部分反应15例(44%),病理无反应8例(24%)。MRI与病理反应的对应率为50% (17/34),PET/CT为65%(22/34)。对于pCR的预测,MRI的特异性高于PET/CT (78.2% vs. 73.9%, p = 0.024), PET/CT的准确性显著高于PET/CT (79.4% vs. 70.5%, p = 0.004)。PET/CT的NPV也高于MRI(94.4%比78.2%,p = 0.002)。MRI和PET/CT在敏感性和PPV方面没有差异。结论:与MRI相比,PET/CT更能反映NACT术后的病理反应。对于pCR的预测,PET/CT被证明是一种比MRI更准确的监测NACT后反应的成像方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信