Classification system for identifying women at risk for altered partial breast irradiation recommendations after breast magnetic resonance imaging

How Does MR Imaging Help Care for My Breast Cancer Patient? Perspective of a Radiation Oncologist

Radiation therapy is used in many cases of both early and late breast cancer. The authors examine the role of MR imaging as it pertains to radiotherapy planning and treatment approaches for patients with breast cancer. MR imaging can assist the radiation oncologist in determining the best radiation approach and in creating treatment planning volumes. MR imaging may be useful in the setting of accelerated partial breast irradiation. Radiation oncologists should attend to MR breast images, when obtained, to ensure that these imaging findings are taken into consideration when developing a radiation therapy plan.

The Changing World of Breast Cancer: A Radiologist's Perspective

Compared with other fields of medicine, there is hardly an area that has seen such fast development as the world of breast cancer. Indeed, the way we treat breast cancer has changed fundamentally over the past decades. Breast imaging has always been an integral part of this change, and it undergoes constant adjustment to new ways of thinking. This relates not only to the technical tools we use for diagnosing breast cancer but also to the way diagnostic information is used to guide treatment. There is a constant change of concepts for and attitudes toward breast cancer, and a constant flux of new ideas, new treatment approaches, and new insights into the molecular and biological behavior of this disease. Clinical breast radiologists and even more so, clinician scientists, interested in breast imaging need to keep abreast with this rapidly changing world. Diagnostic or treatment approaches that are considered useful today may be abandoned tomorrow. Approaches that seem irrelevant or far too extravagant today may prove clinically useful and adequate next year. Radiologists must constantly question what they do, and align their clinical aims and research objectives with the changing needs of contemporary breast oncology. Moreover, knowledge about the past helps better understand present debates and controversies. Accordingly, in this article, we provide an overview on the evolution of breast imaging and breast cancer treatment, describe current areas of research, and offer an outlook regarding the years to come.

MR Imaging for Selection of Patients for Partial Breast Irradiation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To systematically review articles that estimated the ineligibility for partial breast irradiation (PBI) after magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

No ethics committee approval was needed. A systematic search was performed by using MEDLINE and EMBASE. The rate of patients eligible at standard assessment (ie, clinical examination, mammography, and/or ultrasonography) but ineligible after MR imaging was a study outcome. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to identify predictors. Quality was appraised by using the Strengthening Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist.

RESULTS

Of 93 retrieved articles, six were included (total, 3136 patients). For PBI eligibility, all studies applied National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-39 criteria. Ineligibility at standard assessment varied from 21% to 80%; MR imaging prompted ineligibility for PBI in 6%-25% of patients who were initially deemed eligible or in 2%-20% if calculated on the overall number of patients initially screened. Meta-regression showed a negative correlation between ineligibility at standard assessment and ineligibility after MR imaging (P < .001). The pooled percentage of patients eligible at standard assessment but ineligible after MR imaging was 11% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6%, 19%). Predictors for ineligibility after MR imaging were cancers stage pT2 or greater versus less than stage pT2 (OR, 8.8 [95% CI: 4.7, 16.7]; P < .001), invasive lobular histopathologic results versus invasive ductal pathologic results (OR, 3.0 [95% CI: 1.6, 6.6]; P = .007), pre- versus postmenopausal status (OR, 1.9 [95% CI: 1.3, 2.6]; P < .001), invasive cancer versus ductal carcinoma in situ (OR, 1.6 [95% CI: 1.0, 2.4]; P = .031). Study quality ranged from 17 to 20 (maximum quality, 22). The risk of publication bias was moderate.

CONCLUSION

One of nine women (11%), who on the sole basis of standard assessment were candidates to undergo PBI, was found to be ineligible after undergoing MR imaging. Breast MR imaging should be used to select patients for PBI.