Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Computer-Aided Evaluation of Breast MRI for the Residual Tumor Extent and Response Monitoring in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

  • Lyou, Chae-Yeon (Department of Radiology and Clinical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital and the Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center) ;
  • Cho, Nariya (Department of Radiology and Clinical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital and the Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center) ;
  • Kim, Sun-Mi (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Jang, Mi-Jung (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Park, Jeong-Seon (Department of Radiology, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Hanyang University Hospital) ;
  • Baek, Seung-Yon (Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Moon, Woo-Kyung (Department of Radiology and Clinical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital and the Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center)
  • Published : 2011.02.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of a computer-aided evaluation program (CAE) of breast MRI for the assessment of residual tumor extent and response monitoring in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: Fifty-seven patients with breast cancers who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI before and after chemotherapy were included as part of this study. For the assessment of residual tumor extent after completion of chemotherapy, the mean tumor diameters measured by radiologists and CAE were compared to those on histopathology using a paired student t-test. Moreover, the agreement between unidimensional (1D) measurement by radiologist and histopathological size or 1D measurement by CAE and histopathological size was assessed using the Bland-Altman method. For chemotherapy monitoring, we evaluated tumor response through the change in the 1D diameter by a radiologist and CAE and three-dimensional (3D) volumetric change by CAE based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Agreement between the 1D response by the radiologist versus the 1D response by CAE as well as by the 3D response by CAE were evaluated using weighted kappa (k) statistics. Results: For the assessment of residual tumor extent after chemotherapy, the mean tumor diameter measured by radiologists (2.0 ${\pm}$ 1.7 cm) was significantly smaller than the mean histological diameter (2.6 ${\pm}$ 2.3 cm) (p = 0.01), whereas, no significant difference was found between the CAE measurements (mean = 2.2 ${\pm}$ 2.0 cm) and histological diameter (p = 0.19). The mean difference between the 1D measurement by the radiologist and histopathology was 0.6 cm (95% confi dence interval: -3.0, 4.3), whereas the difference between CAE and histopathology was 0.4 cm (95% confi dence interval: -3.9, 4.7). For the monitoring of response to chemotherapy, the 1D measurement by the radiologist and CAE showed a fair agreement (k = 0.358), while the 1D measurement by the radiologist and 3D measurement by CAE showed poor agreement (k = 0.106). Conclusion: CAE for breast MRI is sufficiently accurate for the assessment of residual tumor extent in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, for the assessment of response to chemotherapy, the assessment by the radiologist and CAE showed a fair to poor agreement.

Keywords

References

  1. Esteva FJ, Hortobagyi GN. Locally advanced breast cancer. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 1999;13:457-472 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-8588(05)70065-4
  2. Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Smith R, Valero V, Gianni L, Eiermann W, 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 https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.01.136
  3. Estevez LG, Gradishar WJ. Evidence-based use of neoadjuvant taxane in operable and inoperable breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:3249-3261 https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-03-0133
  4. Shimizu C, Ando M, Kouno T, Katsumata N, Fujiwara Y. Current trends and controversies over pre-operative chemotherapy for women with operable breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2007;37:1-8 https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyl122
  5. Buchholz TA, Lehman CD, Harris JR, Pockaj BA, Khouri N, Hylton NF, et al. Statement of the science concerning locoregional treatments after preoperative chemotherapy for breast cancer: a National Cancer Institute conference. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:791-797 https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.15.0326
  6. Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N, Mamounas E, Brown A, Fisher ER, et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:2672-2685 https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1998.16.8.2672
  7. Kuerer HM, Newman LA, Smith TL, Ames FC, Hunt KK, Dhingra K, 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 https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1999.17.2.460
  8. Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Brambilla C, Ferrari L, Moliterni A, Terenziani M, et al. Primary chemotherapy in operable breast cancer: eight-year experience at the Milan Cancer Institute. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:93-100 https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1998.16.1.93
  9. Buchholz TA, Hill BS, Tucker SL, Frye DK, Kuerer HM, Buzdar AU, et al. Factors predictive of outcome in patients with breast cancer refractory to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer J 2001;7:413-420
  10. Lee SH, Cho N, Kim SJ, Cha JH, Cho KS, Ko ES, et al. Correlation between high resolution dynamic MR features and prognostic factors in breast cancer. Korean J Radiol 2008;9:10-18 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2008.9.1.10
  11. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, 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;92:205-216 https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/92.3.205
  12. Therasse P, Eisenhauer EA, Verweij J. RECIST revisited: a review of validation studies on tumour assessment. Eur J Cancer 2006;42:1031-1039 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2006.01.026
  13. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009;45:228-247 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
  14. Balu-Maestro C, Chapellier C, Bleuse A, Chanalet I, Chauvel C, Largillier R. Imaging in evaluation of response to neoadjuvant breast cancer treatment benefi ts of MRI. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2002;72:145-152 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014856713942
  15. Abraham DC, Jones RC, Jones SE, Cheek JH, Peters GN, Knox SM, et al. Evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapeutic response of locally advanced breast cancer by magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 1996;78:91-100 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960701)78:1<91::AID-CNCR14>3.0.CO;2-2
  16. Drew PJ, Kerin MJ, Mahapatra T, Malone C, Monson JR, Turnbull LW, et al. Evaluation of response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast. Eur J Surg Oncol 2001;27:617-620 https://doi.org/10.1053/ejso.2001.1194
  17. Gilles R, Guinebretiere JM, Toussaint C, Spielman M, Rietjens M, Petit JY, et al. Locally advanced breast cancer: contrastenhanced subtraction MR imaging of response to preoperative chemotherapy. Radiology 1994;191:633-638 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.191.3.8184039
  18. Partridge SC, Gibbs JE, Lu Y, Esserman LJ, Sudilovsky D, Hylton NM. Accuracy of MR imaging for revealing residual breast cancer in patients who have undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:1193-1999 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.179.5.1791193
  19. Weatherall PT, Evans GF, Metzger GJ, Saborrian MH, Leitch AM. MRI vs. histologic measurement of breast cancer following chemotherapy: comparison with x-ray mammography and palpation. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001;13:868-875 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.1124
  20. Rosen EL, Blackwell KL, Baker JA, Soo MS, Bentley RC, Yu D, et al. Accuracy of MRI in the detection of residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:1275-1282 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.181.5.1811275
  21. Rieber A, Zeitler H, Rosenthal H, Gorich J, Kreienberg R, Brambs HJ, et al. MRI of breast cancer: influence of chemotherapy on sensitivity. Br J Radiol 1997;70:452-458 https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.70.833.9227225
  22. Wasser K, Sinn HP, Fink C, Klein SK, Junkermann H, Lüdemann HP, et al. Accuracy of tumor size measurement in breast cancer using MRI is infl uenced by histological regression induced by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Radiol 2003;13:1213-1223
  23. Demartini WB, Lehman CD, Peacock S, Russell MT. Computeraided detection applied to breast MRI: assessment of CAD-generated enhancement and tumor sizes in breast cancers before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Acad Radiol 2005;12:806-814 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2005.03.055
  24. Wang LC, DeMartini WB, Partridge SC, Peacock S, Lehman CD. MRI-detected suspicious breast lesions: predictive values of kinetic features measured by computer-aided evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:826-831 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.1335
  25. Lehman CD, Peacock S, DeMartini WB, Chen X. A new automated software system to evaluate breast MR examinations: improved specifi city without decreased sensitivity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:51-56 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.05.0269
  26. American College of Radiology. BIRADS: ultrasound. In: Breast imaging reporting and data system: BIRADS atlas. 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
  27. Suzuki C, Jacobsson H, Hatschek T, Torkzad MR, Boden K, Eriksson-Alm Y, et al. Radiologic measurements of tumor response to treatment: practical approaches and limitations. Radiographics 2008;28:329-344 https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.282075068
  28. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-310
  29. Rieber A, Brambs HJ, Gabelmann A, Heilmann V, Kreienberg R, Ku¨hn T. Breast MRI for monitoring response of primary breast cancer to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Radiol 2002;12:1711-1719 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-001-1233-x
  30. Partridge SC, Gibbs JE, Lu Y, Esserman LJ, Tripathy D, Wolverton DS, et al. MRI measurements of breast tumor volume predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and recurrence-free survival. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1774-1781 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.184.6.01841774
  31. Hylton N, Blurne J, Bernreuter W, Pisano E, Rosen M, Morris E. MRI assessment of breast cancer response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: Preliminary findings of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) Trial 6657 [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program. Available via http://rsna2008.rsna.org/event_display.cfm?em_id=6006524, unpublished data

Cited by

  1. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Patterns of Tumor Regression After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients: Correlation With Pathological Response Grading System Based on Tumor Cellularity vol.36, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1097/rct.0b013e318246abf3
  2. Usefulness of Combined Metabolic-Volumetric Indices of 18F-FDG PET/CT for the Early Prediction of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Outcomes in Breast Cancer vol.47, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-012-0181-5
  3. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in assessing residual disease and pathologic complete response in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review vol.4, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-013-0219-y
  4. Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.0 with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.1 on MRI in Advanced Breast Cancer Response Evaluation to vol.14, pp.1, 2011, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2013.14.1.13
  5. A Suspicious Breast Lesion Detected by Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI and Pathologically Confirmed as Capillary Hemangioma: a Case Report and Literature Review vol.14, pp.6, 2011, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2013.14.6.869
  6. MRI volume measurements compared with the RECIST 1.1 for evaluating the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for mass-type lesions vol.21, pp.3, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-012-0388-4
  7. Prediction of pathological complete response of breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: usefulness of breast MRI computer-aided detection vol.87, pp.1043, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20140142
  8. Utility of MRI and PET/CT after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: correlation with pathological response grading system based on tumor cellularity vol.55, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185113498720
  9. Quantitative discrimination between invasive ductal carcinomas and benign lesions based on semi-automatic analysis of time intensity curves from breast dynamic contrast enhanced MRI vol.34, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-015-0140-y
  10. Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation? vol.17, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.706
  11. Unidimensional Measurement May Evaluate Target Lymph Nodal Response After Induction Chemotherapy for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma vol.95, pp.9, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000002667
  12. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of residual tumors in breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: surgical implications vol.57, pp.5, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185115597263
  13. Early Prediction of Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Using Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI and Ultrasound in Breast Cancer vol.19, pp.4, 2011, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.19.4.682
  14. Preoperative tumor size measurement in breast cancer patients: which threshold is appropriate on computer-aided detection for breast MRI? vol.20, pp.1, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-020-00307-0