Is contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) an alternative to MRI in assessing the response to primary systemic therapy of breast cancer?

•CEM was found to be as accurate as MRI in predicting response to PST.•MRI predict the size of the residual tumor more accurately than CEM.•Some lesions located posteriorly in the breast were not fully included in the CEM views.•Further research is necessary to identify differences among histologica...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	European journal of radiology Vol. 170; p. 111270
Main Authors:	Sunen, Ines, Isabel Garcia Barrado, Ana, Cruz Ciria, Silvia, Garcia Maroto, Julian, Gros Bañeres, Belen, Garcia Mur, Carmen
Format:	Journal Article
Language:	English
Published:	Ireland Elsevier B.V 01-01-2024
Subjects:	Breast cancer Complete response contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) Primary systemic therapy Residual lesion CC PR non-pCR Residual lesion ICC Breast cancer CEM non-CR Complete response CR PST MLO SD contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) PD NPV BPE DCIS PPV Primary systemic therapy pCR
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	•CEM was found to be as accurate as MRI in predicting response to PST.•MRI predict the size of the residual tumor more accurately than CEM.•Some lesions located posteriorly in the breast were not fully included in the CEM views.•Further research is necessary to identify differences among histological subgroups. To evaluate the accuracy of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the assessing radiological response to primary systemic therapy (PST). Prospective study between February 2021 and October 2022. Women with breast cancer and indication of PST were enrolled. CEM and MRI were performed before and after PST, and the findings, including size and radiological response pattern, were compared with the size of the residual lesion measured in surgical specimens and its Miller-Payne classification (considered the gold standard). Two of four independent radiologists, with 2 years of CEM experience and 10 years of MRI experience, reviewed the images while being blinded to the results of the other technique. The agreement between measurements was evaluated using the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and Lin’s coefficient. Forty-eight women with breast cancer who required PST were enrolled in the study, with a mean age of 57.21 ± 10.14 years. A total of thirty-three participants (68.75 %) completed the study. The correlation between CEM and MRI measurements was high before PST (r: 0.97), and local staging was identical for 45 out of 48 patients. MRI demonstrated better accuracy in predicting residual tumor size than CEM, with Lin’s coefficient 0.91 and 0.73, respectively. However, no significant differences were observed in predicting response to therapy. Both methods tended to overestimate the size and degree of response in our study, with mean overestimations of 2.87 mm in CEM and 0.51 mm in MRI. CEM was found to be as accurate as MRI in predicting response to PST, indicating its potential as an alternative imaging technique, but further research is necessary.
Bibliography:	ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23
ISSN:	0720-048X 1872-7727
DOI:	10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.111270