Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Survival Outcomes in T1-2 Breast Cancer Patients Who Receive Breast-Conserving Therapy

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Role of Preoperative MRI in In-breast Tumor Recurrence After Breast-Conserving Surgery

BACKGROUND

It is unknown whether the identification of additional tumors in the breast using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (pMRI) results in a lower risk of in-breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) after breast-conserving surgery (BCS).

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant studies were performed. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

From 768 citations, 20 studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. The 20 studies consisted of 14 retrospective reviews, 3 matched cohorts, and 3 randomized controlled trials. Whereas 2 studies reported a statistically significant lower rate of IBTR with pMRI, 18 studies showed no difference, and no studies reported a higher rate. Of the 18 studies showing no significant difference, 12 demonstrated a trend toward a lower IBTR rate in the pMRI group. The criteria for meta-analysis were met by 16 studies. A meta-analysis of 11 studies that reported hazard ratios (HR) for IBTR showed a trend toward a lower rate of IBTR for patients who received preoperative MRI (hazard ratio (HR), 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.74-1.05). A meta-analysis of five studies that reported event rates and had similar follow-up duration for both groups demonstrated a lower relative risk (RR) of IBTR (RR, 0.45; 95% CI 0.25-0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

Although some evidence supports the hypothesis that identification of additional tumors in the breast using pMRI results in lower rates of IBTR after BCS, the main meta-analysis in this study did not confirm this hypothesis.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging of Invasive Breast Cancer

As the proportion of women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer increases, the role of imaging for staging and surveillance purposes should be determined based on evidence-based guidelines. It is important to understand the indications for extent of disease evaluation and staging, as unnecessary imaging can delay care and even result in adverse outcomes. In asymptomatic patients that received treatment for curative intent, there is no role for imaging to screen for distant recurrence. Routine surveillance with an annual 2-D mammogram and/or tomosynthesis is recommended to detect an in-breast recurrence or a new primary breast cancer in women with a history of breast cancer, and MRI is increasingly used as an additional screening tool in this population, especially in women with dense breasts. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

CEM immediately after contrast-enhanced CT: a one-step staging of breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a promising technique. We evaluated the diagnostic potential of CEM performed immediately after contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT).

METHODS

Fifty patients with breast cancer underwent first CE-CT and then CEM without additional contrast material injection. Two independent radiologists evaluated CEM images. The sensitivity of CEM for detecting index and additional malignant lesions was compared with that of mammography/ultrasonography by the McNemar test, using histopathology as a reference standard. Interobserver agreement for detection of malignant lesions, for classifying index tumors, and for evaluating index tumor size and extent was assessed using Cohen κ. Pearson correlation was used for correlating index tumor size/extent at CEM or mammography/ultrasonography with histopathology.

RESULTS

Of the 50 patients, 30 (60%) had unifocal disease while 20 (40%) had multicentric or multifocal disease; 5 of 20 patients with multicentric disease (25%) had bilateral involvement, for a total of 78 malignant lesions, including 72 (92%) invasive ductal and 6 (8%) invasive lobular carcinomas. Sensitivity was 63/78 (81%, 95% confidence interval 70.27-88.82) for unenhanced breast imaging and 78/78 (100%, 95.38-100) for CEM (p < 0.001). The interobserver agreement for overall detection of malignant lesions, for classifying index tumor, and for evaluating index tumor size/extent were 0.94, 0.95, and 0.86 κ, respectively. For index tumor size/extent, correlation coefficients as compared with histological specimens were 0.50 for mammography/ultrasonography and 0.75 for CEM (p ≤ 0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

CEM acquired immediately after CE-CT without injection of additional contrast material showed a good performance for local staging of breast cancer.

RELEVANCE STATEMENT

When the CEM suite is near to the CE-CT acquisition room, CEM acquired immediately after, without injection of additional contrast material, could represent a way for local staging of breast cancer to be explored in larger prospective studies.

KEY POINTS

• CEM represents a new accurate tool in the field of breast imaging. • An intravenous injection of iodine-based contrast material is required for breast gland evaluation. • CEM after CE-CT could provide a one-stop tool for breast cancer staging.

Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Preoperative Evaluation of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is known to detect additional cancers that are occult on mammography and ultrasound. There is debate as to whether these additional lesions affect clinical outcomes. The objective of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence on whether additional information on disease extent obtained with preoperative breast MRI in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer affects surgical management, rates of recurrence, survival, re-excision, and early detection of bilateral cancer. Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until January 2021 (partial update July 2022) for studies comparing outcomes with versus without pre-operative MRI. Included were both randomized controlled trials and other comparative studies provided MRI and control groups had equivalent disease and patient characteristics or methods such as multivariable analysis or propensity score matching were used to control potential confounders. Results: The search resulted in 26,399 citations, of which 8 randomized control trials, 1 prospective cohort study, and 42 retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria. Use of MRI resulted in decreased rates of reoperations (OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.85), re-excisions (OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.45 to 0.89), and recurrence (HR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.65 to 0.90). Increased detection of synchronous contralateral breast cancers led to a reduction in metachronous contralateral breast cancer (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.85). Hazard ratios for recurrence-free and overall survival were 0.77 (95% CI = 0.53 to 1.12) and 0.89 (95% CI = 0.74 to 1.07). Conclusion: This systematic review indicates substantial benefits of pre-operative breast MRI in decreasing reoperations and recurrence.

Breast Cancer Staging: Updates in the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th Edition, and Current Challenges for Radiologists, From the AJR Special Series on Cancer Staging

The standardization of the AJCC TNM staging system for breast cancer allows physicians to evaluate patients with breast cancer using standard language and criteria, assess treatment response, and compare patient outcomes. Previous editions of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual relied on the anatomic TNM method of staging that incorporates imaging and uses population-level survival data to predict patient outcomes. Recent advances in therapy based on biomarker status and multigene panels have improved treatment strategies. In the newest edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual (8th edition, adopted on January 1, 2018), breast cancer staging integrates anatomic staging with tumor grade, biomarker data regarding hormone receptor status, oncogene expression, and gene expression profiling to assign a prognostic stage. This article reviews the 8th edition of the AJCC breast cancer staging system with a focus on anatomic staging and the challenges that anatomic staging poses for radiologists. We highlight key imaging findings that impact patient treatment and discuss the role of imaging in evaluating response to neoadjuvant therapy. Finally, we discuss biomarkers and multigene panels and how these impact prognostic stage. The review will help radiologists identify critical findings that affect breast cancer staging and understand ongoing limitations of imaging in staging.

The effect of breast MRI on disease-free and overall survival in breast cancer patients: a retrospective population-based study

Purpose

To evaluate the effect of breast MRI on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of patients with invasive breast cancer in the Netherlands.

Methods

We selected all women from the Netherlands Cancer Registry diagnosed with invasive breast cancer (a) between 2011 and 2013 for the OS-cohort and (b) in the first quarter of 2012 for the DFS-cohort. The study population was subdivided into an MRI and non-MRI group. In addition, subgroups were created according to breast cancer subtype: invasive carcinoma of no special type (NST) versus invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC). OS and DFS were compared between the MRI and non-MRI group using the Kaplan–Meier method and the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was performed to estimate hazard ratios (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). To account for missing data, multiple imputation was performed.

Results

Of the 31,756 patients included in the OS-cohort (70% non-MRI and 30% MRI), 27,752 (87%) were diagnosed with invasive carcinoma NST and 4004 (13%) with ILC. Of the 2464 patients included in the DFS-cohort (72% non-MRI and 28% MRI), 2161 (88%) were diagnosed with invasive carcinoma NST and 303 (12%) with ILC. The distribution of breast MRI use was significantly lower over different age categories, from 49.0% aged < 50 to 16.5% aged > 70. Multivariable Cox regression showed that breast MRI was not significantly associated with OS overall (HR 0.91, 95%-CI 0.74–1.11, p = 0.35), nor in the different histological subtypes. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that breast MRI was also not significantly associated with DFS (HR 1.16, 95%-CI 0.81–1.67), nor in the different histological subtypes.

Conclusion

Use of breast MRI was not significantly associated with an improved OS or DFS in patients treated with primary surgery.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-020-05906-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, 2018 Edition

This article updates readers as to what is new in the Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, 2018 Edition. Breast cancer screening issues are covered, including matters of breast density and possible supplemental modalities, along with appropriate pre-operative/follow-up diagnostic breast imaging tests. Up-to-date clinical practice guidelines for breast cancer screening and diagnosis should help to provide patients and clinicians with not only evidence-based breast imaging options, but also accurate and balanced information about the benefits and harms of intervention, which ultimately enables shared decision making about imaging test plans.

Diagnostic Performance of MRI, Molecular Breast Imaging, and Contrast-enhanced Mammography in Women with Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer

Background Staging newly diagnosed breast cancer by using dynamic contrast material-enhanced MRI is limited by access, high cost, and false-positive findings. The utility of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and ^99mTc sestamibi-based molecular breast imaging (MBI) in this setting is largely unknown. Purpose To compare extent-of-disease assessments by using MRI, CEM, and MBI versus pathology in women with breast cancer. Materials and Methods In this HIPAA-compliant prospective study, women with biopsy-proven breast cancer underwent MRI, CEM, and MBI between October 2014 and April 2018. Eight radiologists independently interpreted each examination result prospectively and were blinded to interpretations of findings with the other modalities. Visibility of index malignancies, lesion size, and additional suspicious lesions (malignant or benign) were compared during pathology review. Accuracy of index lesion sizing and detection of additional lesions in women without neoadjuvant chemotherapy were compared. Results A total of 102 women were enrolled and 99 completed the study protocol (mean age, 51 years ± 11 [standard deviation]; range, 32-77 years). Lumpectomy or mastectomy was performed in 71 women (79 index malignancies) without neoadjuvant chemotherapy and in 28 women (31 index malignancies) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Of the 110 index malignancies, MRI, CEM, and MBI depicted 102 (93%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 86%, 97%), 100 (91%; 95% CI: 84%, 96%), and 101 (92%; 95% CI: 85%, 96%) malignancies, respectively. In patients without neoadjuvant chemotherapy, pathologic size of index malignancies was overestimated with all modalities (P = .02). MRI led to overestimation of 24% (17 of 72) of malignancies by more than 1.5 cm compared with 11% (eight of 70) with CEM and 15% (11 of 72) with MBI. MRI depicted more (P = .007) nonindex lesions, with sensitivity similar to that of CEM or MBI, resulting in lower positive predictive value of additional biopsies (13 of 46 [28%; 95% CI: 17%, 44%] for MRI; 14 of 27 [52%; 95% CI: 32%, 71%] for CEM; and 11 of 25 [44%; 95% CI: 24%, 65%] for MBI (overall P = .01). Conclusion Contrast-enhanced mammography, molecular breast imaging, and MRI showed similar detection of all malignancies. MRI depicted more nonindex suspicious benign lesions than did contrast-enhanced mammography or molecular breast imaging, leading to lower positive predictive value of additional biopsies. All three modalities led to overestimation of index tumor size, particularly MRI. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Clinical role of breast MRI now and going forward

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a well-established method in breast imaging, with manifold clinical applications, including the non-invasive differentiation between benign and malignant breast lesions, preoperative staging, detection of scar versus recurrence, implant assessment, and the evaluation of high-risk patients. At present, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI is the most sensitive imaging technique for breast cancer diagnosis, and provides excellent morphological and to some extent also functional information. To compensate for the limited functional information, and to increase the specificity of MRI while preserving its sensitivity, additional functional parameters such as diffusion-weighted imaging and apparent diffusion coefficient mapping, and MR spectroscopic imaging have been investigated and implemented into the clinical routine. Several additional MRI parameters to capture breast cancer biology are still under investigation. MRI at high and ultra-high field strength and advances in hard- and software may also further improve this imaging technique. This article will review the current clinical role of breast MRI, including multiparametric MRI and abbreviated protocols, and provide an outlook on the future of this technique. In addition, the predictive and prognostic value of MRI as well as the evolving field of radiogenomics will be discussed.

MRI for the Staging and Evaluation of Response to Therapy in Breast Cancer

Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most sensitive of the available imaging modalities to characterize breast cancer. Breast MRI has gained clinical acceptance for screening high-risk patients, but its role in the preoperative imaging of breast cancer patients remains controversial. This review focuses on the current indications for staging breast MRI, the evidence for and against the role of breast MRI in the preoperative staging workup, and the evaluation of treatment response of breast cancer patients.

MRI in the Assessment of BI-RADS® 4 lesions

The American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon, which is used ubiquitously to standardize reporting of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), provides 7 BI-RADS assessment categories to indicate the level of suspicion of malignancy and guide further management. A BI-RADS category 4 assessment is assigned when an imaging abnormality does not fulfill the typical criteria for malignancy, but is suspicious enough to warrant a recommendation for biopsy. The BI-RADS category 4 assessment covers a wide range of probability of malignancy, from >2 to <95%. MRI is an essential noninvasive technique in breast imaging and the role of MRI in the assessment of ACR BI-RADS 4 lesions is manifold. In lesions classified as suspicious on imaging with mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and sonography, MRI can aid in the noninvasive differentiation of benign and malignant lesions and obviate unnecessary breast biopsies. When the suspicion of cancer is confirmed with MRI, concurrent staging of disease for treatment planning can be accomplished. This article will provide a comprehensive overview of the role of breast MRI in the assessment of ACR BI-RADS 4 lesions. In addition, we will discuss strategies to decrease false positives and avoid false negative results when reporting MRI of the breast.