Comparison of 99mTc-Sestamibi Molecular Breast Imaging and Breast MRI in Patients With Invasive Breast Cancer Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
Katie N. Hunt1, Amy Lynn Conners1, Matthew P. Goetz2, Michael K. O'Connor1 ... Show all
Share Share
+ Affiliations:
Citation: American Journal of Roentgenology: 1-12. 10.2214/AJR.18.20628
AbstractFull TextReferencesPDFPDF PlusAdd to FavoritesPermissionsDownload Citation
ABSTRACT :
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to prospectively compare the size of invasive breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) at breast MRI and molecular breast imaging (MBI) and to assess the accuracy of post-NAC MBI and MRI relative to pathologic analysis.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Women with invasive breast cancer greater than or equal to 1.5 cm were enrolled to compare the longest dimension before and after NAC at MRI and MBI. MBI was performed on a dual-detector cadmium zinc telluride system after administration of 6.5 mCi (240 MBq) 99mTc-sestamibi. The accuracy of MRI and MBI in assessing residual disease (invasive disease or ductal carcinoma in situ) was determined relative to pathologic examination.

RESULTS. The longest dimension at MRI was within 1.0 cm of that at MBI in 72.3% of cases before NAC and 70.1% of cases after NAC. The difference between the longest dimension at imaging after NAC and pathologic tumor size was within 1 cm for 58.7% of breast MRI cases and 59.6% of MBI cases. Ninety patients underwent both MRI and MBI after NAC. In the 56 patients with invasive residual disease, 10 (17.9%) cases were negative at MRI and 23 (41.1%) cases were negative at MBI. In the 34 patients with breast pathologic complete response, there was enhancement in 10 cases (29.4%) at MRI and uptake in six cases (17.6%) at MBI. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value after NAC were 82.8%, 69.4%, 81.4%, and 71.4%, respectively, for MRI and 58.9%, 82.4%, 84.6%, and 54.9%, respectively, for MBI.

CONCLUSION. Breast MRI and MBI showed similar disease extent before NAC. MBI may be an alternative to breast MRI in patients with a contraindication to breast MRI. Neither modality showed sufficient accuracy after NAC in predicting breast pathologic complete response to obviate tissue diagnosis to assess for residual invasive disease. Defining the extent of residual disease compared with pathologic evaluation was also limited after NAC for both breast MRI and MBI.

Keywords: 99mTc-sestamibi, breast cancer, molecular breast imaging, MRI, neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Supported in part by funding to the BEAUTY study from the Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine, Nadia's Gift Foundation, John P. Guider, the Eveleigh family, George M. Eisenberg Foundation for Charities, Afaf Al-Bahar, and the Pharmacogenomics Research Network, and other contributing groups including the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center and the Mayo Clinic Breast Specialized Program of Research Excellence.

Acknowledgment

Previous sectionNext section
We thank Ann Moyer for her contributions to this work.

References

Previous section
1. Rauch GM, Adrada BE, Kuerer HM, van la Parra RF, Leung JW, Yang WT. Multimodality imaging for evaluating response to neoadjuvant chemo-therapy in breast cancer. AJR 2017; 208:290–299 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
2. Al-Hilli Z, Boughey JC. The timing of breast and axillary surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Linchuang Zhongliuxue Zazhi 2016; 5:37 [Google Scholar]
3. Croshaw R, Shapiro-Wright H, Svensson E, Erb K, Julian T. Accuracy of clinical examination, digital mammogram, ultrasound, and MRI in determining postneoadjuvant pathologic tumor response in operable breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2011; 18:3160–3163 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
4. Atkins JJ, Appleton CM, Fisher CS, Gao F, Margenthaler JA. Which imaging modality is superior for prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with triple negative breast cancer? J Oncol 2013; 2013:964863 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
5. Schulz-Wendtland R. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy: monitoring—clinical examination, ultrasound, mammography, MRI, elastography; only one, only few or all? Eur J Radiol 2012; 81(suppl 1):S147–S148 [Google Scholar]
6. Dialani V, Chadashvili T, Slanetz PJ. Role of imaging in neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2015; 22:1416–1424 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
7. Bouzón A, Acea B, Soler R, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of MRI to evaluate tumour response and residual tumour size after neoadjuvant chemo-therapy in breast cancer patients. Radiol Oncol 2016; 50:73–79 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
8. Yuan Y, Chen XS, Liu SY, Shen KW. Accuracy of MRI in prediction of pathologic complete remission in breast cancer after preoperative therapy: a meta-analysis. AJR 2010; 195:260–268 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
9. Marinovich ML, Macaskill P, Irwig L, et al. Meta-analysis of agreement between MRI and pathologic breast tumour size after neoadjuvant chemo-therapy. Br J Cancer 2013; 109:1528–1536 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
10. Fatayer H, Sharma N, Manuel D, et al. Serial MRI scans help in assessing early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and tailoring breast cancer treatment. Eur J Surg Oncol 2016; 42:965–972 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
11. Mitchell D, Hruska CB, Boughey JC, et al. 99mTc-sestamibi using a direct conversion molecular breast imaging system to assess tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with locally advanced breast cancer. Clin Nucl Med 2013; 38:949–956 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
12. Goetz MP, Kalari KR, Suman VJ, et al. Tumor sequencing and patient-derived xenografts in the neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2017; 109:djw306 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
13. Goetz MP, Sun JX, Suman VJ, et al. Loss of heterozygosity at the CYP2D6 locus in breast cancer: implications for germline pharmacogenetic studies. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014; 107:dju401 [Medline] [Google Scholar]
14. Weinmann AL, Hruska CB, O'Connor MK. Design of optimal collimation for dedicated molecular breast imaging systems. Med Phys 2009; 36:845–856 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
15. O'Connor MK, Hruska CB, Tran TD, et al. Factors influencing the uptake of 99mTc-sestamibi in breast tissue on molecular breast imaging. J Nucl Med Technol 2015; 43:13–20 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
16. Conners AL, Hruska CB, Tortorelli CL, et al. Lexicon for standardized interpretation of gamma camera molecular breast imaging: observer agreement and diagnostic accuracy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012; 39:971–982 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
17. Symmans WF, Peintinger F, Hatzis C, et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:4414–4422 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
18. von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU, et al. Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemo-therapy in various intrinsic breast cancer sub-types. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30:1796–1804 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
19. Dominici LS, Negron Gonzalez VM, Buzdar AU, et al. Cytologically proven axillary lymph node metastases are eradicated in patients receiving preoperative chemotherapy with concurrent trastuzumab for HER2-positive breast cancer. Cancer 2010; 116:2884–2889 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
20. Scheel JR, Kim E, Partridge SC, et al.; ACRIN 6657 Trial Team and I-SPY Investigators Network. MRI, clinical examination, and mammography for preoperative assessment of residual disease and pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: ACRIN 6657 trial. AJR 2018; 210:1376–1385 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
21. Fowler AM, Mankoff DA, Joe BN. Imaging neoadjuvant therapy response in breast cancer. Radiology 2017; 285:358–375 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
22. Hruska CB, Weinmann AL, O'Connor MK. Proof of concept for low-dose molecular breast imaging with a dual-head CZT gamma camera. Part I. Evaluation in phantoms. Med Phys 2012; 39:3466–3475 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
23. DeMartini WB, Rahbar H. Breast magnetic resonance imaging technique at 1.5 T and 3 T: requirements for quality imaging and American College of Radiology accreditation. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2013; 21:475–482 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
24. Rosen EL, Blackwell KL, Baker JA, et al. Accuracy of MRI in the detection of residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. AJR 2003; 181:1275–1282 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
25. Denis F, Desbiez-Bourcier AV, Chapiron C, Arbion F, Body G, Brunereau L. Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging underestimates residual disease following neoadjuvant docetaxel based chemotherapy for breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2004; 30:1069–1076 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
26. Patel BK, Hilal T, Covington M, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography is comparable to MRI in the assessment of residual breast cancer following neoadjuvant systemic therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 2018; 25:1350–1356 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
27. Iotti V, Ravaioli S, Vacondio R, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in neoadjuvant chemotherapy monitoring: a comparison with breast magnetic resonance imaging. Breast Cancer Res 2017; 19:106 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
28. Li H, Yao L, Jin P, et al. MRI and PET/CT for evaluation of the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast 2018; 40:106–115 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
29. Evans A, Whelehan P, Thompson A, et al. Identification of pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: comparison of greyscale ultrasound, shear wave elastography, and MRI. Clin Radiol 2018; 73:910.e1–910.e6 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
30. Wasif N, Garreau J, Terando A, Kirsch D, Mund DF, Giuliano AE. MRI versus ultrasonography and mammography for preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Am Surg 2009; 75:970–975 [Medline] [Google Scholar]
31. Gruber IV, Rueckert M, Kagan KO, et al. Measurement of tumour size with mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance imaging as compared to histological tumour size in primary breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2013; 13:328 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
32. Luparia A, Mariscotti G, Durando M, et al. Accuracy of tumour size assessment in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison of digital mammography, tomosynthesis, ultrasound and MRI. Radiol Med (Torino) 2013; 118:1119–1136 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
33. De Los Santos JF, Cantor A, Amos KD, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of pathologic response in patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic treatment for operable breast cancer. Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium trial 017. Cancer 2013; 119:1776–1783 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
34. Menes TS, Golan O, Vainer G, et al. Assessment of residual disease with molecular breast imaging in patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy: association with molecular subtypes. Clin Breast Cancer 2016; 16:389–395 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
Address correspondence to K. N. Hunt (hunt.katie@mayo.edu).



Read More: https://www.ajronline.org/doi/abs/10.2214/AJR.18.20628