Neoadjuvant breast cancer treatment response; tumor size evaluation through different conventional imaging modalities in the NeoDense study. (1st December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Skarping, Ida; Förnvik, Daniel; Heide-Jørgensen, Uffe; Rydén, Lisa; Zackrisson, Sophia; Borgquist, Signe
• Is Part Of: Acta oncologica. Volume 59:Number 12(2020)
• Page Start: 1528
• Page End: 1537
• Publication Date: 2020-12-01
• Subjects: Breast cancer -- neoadjuvant chemotherapy -- imaging -- response evaluation; Oncology -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Treatment -- Periodicals; 616.992
• DOI: 10.1080/0284186X.2020.1830167
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0284-186X

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is offered to an increasing number of breast cancer (BC) patients, and comprehensive monitoring of treatment response is of utmost importance. Several imaging modalities are available to follow tumor response, although likely to provide different clinical information. We aimed to examine the association between early radiological response by three conventional imaging modalities and pathological complete response (pCR). Further, we investigated the agreement between these modalities pre-, during, and post-NACT, and the accuracy of predicting pathological residual tumor burden by these imaging modalities post-NACT. Material and methods: This prospective Swedish cohort study included 202 BC patients assigned to NACT (2014–2019). Breast imaging with clinically used modalities: mammography, ultrasound, and tomosynthesis was performed pre-, during, and post-NACT. We investigated the agreement of tumor size by the different imaging modalities, and their accuracy of tumor size estimation. Patients with a radiological complete response or radiological partial response (≥30% decrease in tumor diameter) during NACT were classified as radiological early responders. Results: Patients with an early radiological response by ultrasound had 2.9 times higher chance of pCR than early radiological non-responders; the corresponding relative chance for mammography and tomosynthesis tumor size measures was 1.8 and 2.8, respectively. Post-NACT, each modality, separately, could accurately estimate tumor size (within 5 mm margin compared to pathological evaluation) in 43–46% of all tumors. The diagnostic precision in predicting pCR post-NACT was similar between the three imaging modalities; however, tomosynthesis had slightly higher specificity and positive predictive values. Conclusion: Breast imaging modalities correctly estimated pathological tumor size in less than half of the tumors. Based on this finding, predicting residual tumor size post-NACT is challenging using conventional imaging. Patients with early radiological non-response might need improved monitoring during NACT and be considered for changed treatment plans.