Locally advanced breast cancer: comparison of mammography, sonography and MR imaging in evaluation of residual disease in women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Current Status of Breast MR Imaging Part 2. Clinical Applications

Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is emerging as the most sensitive modality that is currently available for the detection of primary or recurrent breast cancer. Although this technique has been shown to be an extremely powerful diagnostic tool, it is still relatively rarely used in clinical practice, as compared with other applications of MR imaging such as for musculoskeletal or brain and spine imaging. This is the second of a two-part series on the current status of breast MR. Part two provides an overview of the use of breast MR imaging in clinical patient care, the body of evidence that supports its use. A discussion is provided on the many controversies that exist regarding breast MR imaging for preoperative staging and for screening.

Outcome of initially only magnetic resonance mammography-detected findings with and without correlate at second-look sonography: distribution according to patient history of breast cancer and lesion size

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the outcome of initially only magnetic resonance mammography (MRM)-detected breast lesions as a function of radiologic features, history of breast cancer and lesion size. We evaluated core needle biopsy (CNB) (148) and follow-up (25) results of 173 initially only MRM-detected lesions-142 with and 31 without "second-look" correlate, as a function of (1) radiologic features (sonographic correlate, MRI BI-RADS category); (2) history of breast cancer; (3) MRM indication in case of history of breast neoplasm; (4) side and size of synchronous cancer; (5) lesion diameter. (1) Overall malignancy rate was 28.3% (49/173); significantly higher among lesions with a sonographic correlate (46/142), than among those without (3/31) (p=0.014). Frequencies of malignancy for MRI BI-RADS categories 2, 3, 4 and 5, were 0% (0/1), 5.4% (4/73), 26.1% (17/65) and 82.3% (28/34), respectively. (2) Malignancy rate was significantly higher in case of history of breast carcinoma (40/118 versus 9/55; p=0.027); in particular, of 42 MRI BI-RADS category 3 lesions in women with history of breast cancer and of 31 in patients without history, 3 (7%) and 1 (3%) proved to be malignant, respectively (non-significant). (3) Malignancy was more frequent when MRM was performed for pre-operative assessment than for follow-up (30/78 versus 10/40; non-significant). (4) Malignancy rate increased in presence of ipsilateral (19/35 versus 11/43; p=0.018), large (cut-off 6 mm: 30/75 versus 0/3, non-significant; 11 mm: 28/61 versus 2/17, p=0.011; 16 mm: 24/48 versus 6/30, p=0.015; 21 mm: 14/21 versus 16/57, p=0.004) primary tumors. (5) The frequency of malignancy was significantly higher in lesions equal to or larger than 6, 11 and 16 mm, compared with smaller lesions (6 mm: 45/136 versus 4/37, p=0.007; 11 mm: 21/51 versus 28/122, p=0.025; 16 mm: 12/24 versus 37/149, p=0.021). Radiologic features, history of breast cancer and large diameter are associated with high likelihood of malignancy in case of initially only MRM-detected lesions. Nevertheless, biopsy might be spared just for MRI BI-RADS 3 lesions in patients without history of breast carcinoma.

Contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging: the surgical perspective

BACKGROUND

Contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has shown excellent sensitivity (93%) for breast malignancies. The clinical role and value of MRI for the breast surgeon remains unresolved and controversial.

METHODS

A retrospective review of clinical and imaging records was undertaken for 79 surgical patients evaluated by MRI as part of their initial assessment.

RESULTS

Of 79 patients, 71 (90%) had dense mammograms, 64 (81%) had known primary breast cancer (BrCA), 42 (53%) had a family history of BrCA, and 8 (10%) had known breast atypia. MRI identified a larger than clinically suspected BrCA size in 10 (16%) patients and greater BrCA extent in 26 (41%) patients. Of 15 non-BrCA patients, 10 (67%) had a biopsy after the MRI with identification of BrCA in 6 (40%) patients. Overall, there were 20 MRI-initiated core biopsies, of which 14 (70%) identified BrCA. Of 70 BrCA patients, 13 (19%) had neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 35 (50%) had breast-conserving surgery, 36 (51%) had total mastectomy, and 14 (22%) had bilateral total mastectomy. MRI had good pathology correlation in 56 of 62 (90%) patients. In patients with known BrCA (by core biopsy), none of the 29 breast-conserving surgery resections undertaken after MRI had a positive margin or required re-excision.

CONCLUSIONS

MRI is very accurate for BrCA evaluation, both for lesion size and extent. With good collaboration between the radiologist and surgeon, MRI is a powerful 3-dimensional and communication tool for the breast surgeon and the patient.

Role of pre-surgical breast MRI in the management of invasive breast carcinoma

The purpose of the study was to assess the role of preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a complementary tool to routine imaging methods in the management of women affected by invasive breast carcinoma. Mammograms, sonograms and biopsy results of 121 breasts in 118 women affected by invasive breast carcinoma, who underwent pre-surgical breast MR, were re-examined to identify patients theoretically eligible for conservative surgery instead of radical mastectomy. Surgery effectively performed was evaluated to identify cases for which MRI determined a change in management. The gold standard was the final pathology. Breast MRI determined an overall change in management in 22 out of 121 breasts (18.2%), and in two out of 87 breasts (25.3%) in patients eligible for conservative surgery. In the evaluation of single breasts, MRI resulted in true-positive in 22 out of 29 breasts (75.9%), false-positive in 7 out of 29 breasts (24.1%), leading to over-treatment in women whose treatment was changed from conservative surgery to radical mastectomy. MRI sensitivity in the detection of additional foci not seen on conventional imaging was 57.4%, overall sensitivity 87.4%, sensitivity for invasive cancers 93.1%, while for ductal carcinoma in situ it was 58.8%. In conclusion, breast MRI determines a significant change in the management of patients affected by invasive breast carcinoma, particularly in patients eligible for conservative surgery after standard breast examination.

Recurrence rates after DCE-MRI image guided planning for breast-conserving surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant therapy results in a significant increase in breast-conserving surgery. However, traditional imaging methods are unable to accurately predict the extent of viable residual disease leading to uncertainty in surgical planning and some previous studies have shown a disproportionately high incidence of locoregional recurrence. Dynamic contrast enhanced-MRI (DCE-MRI) has been shown to provide a potentially more accurate prediction of residual disease.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in our unit are staged with the DCE-MRI of the breast performed at 1.5 T before, during and after treatment and the final result was used to plan surgery. Two hundred and four patients with breast cancer were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy between 1996 and April 2005. Eighteen of these patients had distant metastases at the time of initial diagnosis and so were excluded from the present study. Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 186 patients underwent surgical treatment. Of these, 68 patients had breast-conserving surgery. At a median follow up of 30 months (range: 5.6-72 months) 21 patients in this group developed subsequent recurrence (21/68 - 30%) of whom 9 (9/68 - 13%) had locoregional recurrence, 7 had local recurrence (7/68 - 10%), and 17 (17/68 - 25%) had distant recurrence. Logistic regression analysis revealed only vascular invasion (p=0.006) of the tumour to be significantly associated with overall recurrence. None of the pathological factors (ER, PR status, vascular invasion, lymph node metastases, pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy) showed a significant association with locoregional recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Breast-conserving surgery with DCE-MRI planning after neoadjuvant chemotherapy provides an acceptable level of local recurrence without the need for mastectomy.

MR imaging for assessment of breast cancer response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Contrast-enhanced MR imaging is being used increasingly because of its high sensitivity to breast cancer and superior ability to demonstrate the extent and distribution of disease. In addition to this direct clinical use, MR imaging in the neoadjuvant treatment setting allows exploration of its potential value in quantifying primary tumor response. The high sensitivity and staging accuracy of MR imaging may yield more accurate classification of objective tumor response using RECIST criteria than clinical examination or mammography. Functional measurements hold the promise of greater sensitivity for detecting biologic effects of targeted treatments than simple anatomic methods.

The surgical management of patients who achieve a complete pathological response after primary chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer

AIMS

Our aim was to investigate the role of minimal surgery in patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) who achieve a complete pathological (pCR) response to primary chemotherapy (PC) and evaluate subsequent local recurrence (LRR), disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

METHODS

Between January 2000 and April 2005, 101 patients with operable LABC (T2, T3, N0 or N1, M0) who were not suitable for conservation surgery were treated with PC. Patients were treated with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide for four cycles (100 patients) then four cycles with paclitaxel (91 patients). Post-PC surgery consisted of multiple core biopsies and axillary clearance for patients with a complete clinical and radiological response. If a pCR was confirmed no further breast surgery was performed. The remaining patients were treated with breast conserving surgery or mastectomy and axillary clearance as appropriate. Adjuvant radiotherapy was given to all patients.

RESULTS

Breast conservation was possible in 60% of patients. Overall, 20 patients achieved a pCR of which 16 were confirmed on core biopsies alone. All patients were followed-up for a mean of 33.5 months (95% CI, 30.3-36.7). There were 10 local recurrences, four following mastectomy, four after wide excision and two after core biopsies. There was no difference in DFS (chi square=0.18; p=0.67) or OS (chi square=0.67; p=0.41) between patients achieving a pCR and the remainder.

CONCLUSIONS

The local recurrence rate of these poor prognosis patients is similar to other reported series but higher than in our previously reported series of patients managed according to the same protocol. Our current management therefore now includes pre-treatment marking and subsequent surgical excision.

Does MRI predict pathologic tumor response in women with breast cancer undergoing preoperative chemotherapy?

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy precludes the accurate pre-surgical pathologic measurement of tumor size. The purpose of this study is to review imaging studies performed in patients who received preoperative chemotherapy prior to surgery and determine whether MRI, ultrasound (US) or physical exam best predicted final pathologic tumor size.

METHODS

Stage I, II, and III breast cancer patients were treated with neoadjuvant therapy on trial. As part of the trials, women underwent MRI, US, and physical exam prior to the start of therapy and 1 week after completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Of the 68 patients with MRI data, the correlation coefficient (r) of MRI to pathologic size of tumor was r = 0.749. Among the 52 patients who had an US assessment the correlation of US to pathology was r = 0.612. Sixty-two patients had physical exam data, and the correlation of examination to pathology size was r = 0.439. MRI correctly predicted 8 of 11 complete responders and accurately evaluated the size of non-responders to neoadjuvant therapy (r = 0.869)

CONCLUSIONS

In a select group of women undergoing neoadjuvant therapy for invasive breast cancer, MRI best predicted pathology response. The use of MRI in neoadjuvant therapy may allow for accurate prediction of patients eligible for breast conservation.

Multidetector computed tomography assessment on tumor size and nodal status in patients with locally advanced breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy

AIMS

To evaluate the utility of multidetector computed tomography (MCT) in assessing tumor size and nodal status in patients with advanced breast cancers before and after the neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

Twenty-eight proven locally advanced breast cancer patients with 30 tumors were enrolled in this study. MCT was used to assess tumor size and axillary lymph nodes before and after the neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The correlation between tumor size on MCT and gross tumor size was tested.

RESULTS

The MCT measurements documented complete response in 3, partial response in 18, non-response in 8 and progressed in 1. The mean tumor diameters on pathology and post-chemotherapy MCT were 3.6cm (S.D.=+/-2.9cm) and 3.1cm (S.D.=+/-2.6cm), respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.76 (p<0.001). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive valve, negative predictive valve and accuracy of MCT in diagnosing the axillary lymph node metastases after pre-operative neoadjuvant chemotherapy were counted, respectively, to 72%, 40%, 85.7%, 22.2% and 66.7%. All the 5 downstaged axillary nodal statuses from node-positive to node-negative on MCT had micrometastases.

CONCLUSION

MCT can be used to evaluate tumor size and nodal status in patients with advanced breast cancer. As there is a baseline MCT before chemotherapy for comparison, we are potentially aware of the possibility of false negative nodal micrometastases on the post-chemotherapy MCT.

How to optimize clinical breast MR imaging practices and techniques on Your 1.5-T system

Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, when used in conjunction with mammography and ultrasonography, can be a powerful tool for breast imaging. There are various clinical scenarios in which MR imaging may provide key information that leads to an alteration in treatment plans (eg, by demonstrating features that were occult at physical examination or conventional imaging). Although many benign and malignant entities enhance at contrast material-enhanced breast MR imaging, the morphologic characteristics and kinetic profiles of lesions help narrow the differential diagnosis. To optimize the quality of the morphologic and kinetic information yielded by breast MR imaging, the radiologist must attend to various practical and technical prerequisites: A bilateral breast coil should be used with prone positioning of the patient. An MR imaging system with a high-field-strength magnet is needed, and the magnetic field must be homogeneous across the field of view, which should include both breasts. A T2-weighted sequence should be applied first to identify any cysts and should be followed by three-dimensional imaging with a T1-weighted spoiled gradient-echo sequence after the intravenous administration of a gadolinium chelate. To minimize artifacts, a direction other than the anterior-posterior direction should be selected for phase encoding. To suppress the signal from fat, a frequency-selective pulse should be applied during imaging, or the unenhanced MR imaging data should be subtracted from the contrast-enhanced MR imaging data during postprocessing. The imaging section thickness should be 3 mm or less, the pixel size should be less than 1 mm in each in-plane direction, and the total acquisition time should be less than 2 minutes.

Do We Need Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials to Evaluate the Clinical Impact of Breast MR Imaging?

MR imaging of the breast has been shown to identify breast cancers that have gone undetected by mammography. There are a number of potential designs that can be used to further evaluate breast MR imaging, particularly with respect its impact on clinical care. Determination of whether using breast MR imaging to screen healthy individuals for breast cancer actually reduces breast cancer-specific mortality--and whether this can be accomplished at an acceptable cost--probably requires randomized, controlled clinical.

Primary Systemic Therapy of Breast Cancer

Primary systemic therapy (PST) or neoadjuvant therapy is used in nonmetastatic breast cancer to treat systemic disease earlier, decrease tumor bulk ideally to a complete pathological response (pCR), and reduce the extent of surgery. The multitude of clinical trials using PST in breast cancer patients has not proven the fundamental hypotheses of improved overall survival and disease-free survival that drove the investigation of PST. The other potential advantages of PST, which include increasing the rate of breast-conserving surgery and predicting outcome to a particular chemotherapy regimen, are also not conclusively established. We examined the published literature on PST for breast cancer and predominantly focused our review on data from large, randomized clinical trials comparing primary systemic chemotherapy with adjuvant chemotherapy, different primary systemic chemotherapy regimens, primary systemic chemotherapy with hormonal therapy, and different preoperative hormonal therapies. Although the optimal neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen has not been established, a combination of four cycles of an anthracycline followed by four cycles of a taxane appears to produce the highest pCR rate (22%-31%). In patients with HER-2-positive breast cancer, concurrent use of neoadjuvant trastuzumab with an anthracycline-taxane combination has produced provocative results that require further confirmatory studies. Preoperative hormonal therapy is associated with low pCR rates and should be reserved for patients who are poor candidates for systemic chemotherapy. The optimal management of patients with residual disease after the administration of maximum neoadjuvant therapy remains to be defined. The surgical approach, including the role of sentinel node biopsy and delivery of radiation therapy after PST in breast cancer patients, is evolving. Ongoing clinical trials will help identify the subset of patients who would most benefit from the use of PST, establish the most effective PST regimen, and determine the optimal multidisciplinary approach in the management of breast cancer.

Monitoring therapeutic efficacy in breast carcinomas

The aim of imaging during and after neoadjuvant therapy is to document and quantify tumor response: has the tumor size been accurately measured? Certainly, the most exciting information for the oncologists is: can we identify good or nonresponders, and can we predict the pathological response early after the initiation of treatment? This review article will discuss the role and the performance of the different imaging modalities (mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and FDG-PET imaging) for evaluating this therapeutic response. It is important to emphasize that, at this time, clinical examination and conventional imaging (mammography and ultrasound) are the only methods recognized by the international criteria. Magnetic resonance imaging and FDG-PET imaging are very promising for predicting the response early after the initiation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Accuracy of physical examination, ultrasonography, and mammography in predicting residual pathologic tumor size in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To assess the accuracy of physical examination, ultrasonography, and mammography in predicting residual size of breast tumors following neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an accepted part of the management of stage II and III breast cancer. Accurate prediction of residual pathologic tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is critical in guiding surgical therapy. Although physical examination, ultrasonography, and mammography have all been used to predict residual tumor size, there have been conflicting reports about the accuracy of these methods in the neoadjuvant setting.

METHODS

We reviewed the records of 189 patients who participated in 1 of 2 protocols using doxorubicin-containing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and who had assessment by physical examination, ultrasonography, and/or mammography no more than 60 days before their surgical resection. Size correlations were performed using Spearman rho analysis. Clinical and pathologic measurements were also compared categorically using the weighted kappa statistic.

RESULTS

Size estimates by physical examination, ultrasonography, and mammography were only moderately correlated with residual pathologic tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (correlation coefficients: 0.42, 0.42, and 0.41, respectively), with an accuracy of +/-1 cm in 66% of patients by physical examination, 75% by ultrasonography, and 70% by mammography. Kappa values (0.24-0.35) indicated poor agreement between clinical and pathologic measurements.

CONCLUSION

Physical examination, ultrasonography, and mammography were only moderately useful for predicting residual pathologic tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Breast-conserving surgery after chemotherapy: value of MDCT for determining tumor distribution and shrinkage pattern

OBJECTIVE

For this study, we investigated the usefulness of MDCT in assessing the extent of residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. To ensure the success of breast-conserving surgery, we evaluated the usefulness of determining the tumor distribution before neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the shrinkage pattern after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

MDCT before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was performed in 46 consecutive patients with 47 locally advanced breast cancers. The distribution pattern of contrast enhancement on MDCT before neoadjuvant chemotherapy was classified into five categories: solitary lesion, grouped lesion (localized lesion with linear, spotty, or linear and spotty enhancement), separated lesion (multiple foci of contrast enhancement), mixed lesion (grouped lesion with multiple foci), and replaced lesion (diffuse contrast enhancement in whole quadrants).

RESULTS

There was agreement between the MDCT assessment and pathologic findings in 44 (94%) of the 47 tumors. In the partial response group with nonreplaced lesions, MDCT revealed three shrinkage patterns: pattern 1a, concentric shrinkage without surrounding lesions; pattern 1b, concentric shrinkage with surrounding lesions; and pattern 2, shrinkage with residual multinodular lesions. Breast-conserving surgery was performed successfully in 14 patients including complete response cases that were detected on the basis of MDCT findings and partial response cases that were detected on the basis of observation of pattern 1 shrinkage. In all five patients with pattern 2 shrinkage, CT underestimated the residual tumor extent by more than 2 cm.

CONCLUSION

MDCT classification of tumor distribution before neoadjuvant chemotherapy and of shrinkage patterns after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is important in the preoperative evaluation of patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery.

How do we measure a residual tumor size in histopathology (the gold standard) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy?

Accurate reporting of the residual tumor size by pathologists after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an important component of a breast cancer. Recent literature reported comparisons regarding the accuracy of clinical and radiological residual tumor size findings using the histopathology as a "gold standard". However, the histopathological methods of measuring the residual tumor size are not standardized. Most pathologists use the tumor size measured by the gross examination. We collected 32 patient samples and compared the residual tumor size by gross and microscopic pathologic examinations. Using microscopic tumor size as the gold standard, our study showed gross tumor size is overestimated in 25%, underestimated in 56% and correlated to the final microscopic tumor size in 19% of the cases after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Determining accurate residual tumor size to estimate pathologic response to chemotherapy is essential. We attempted to provide guidelines for pathology reporting post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy on breast cancers.

Patterns of Local and Distant Disease Relapse in Patients with Breast Cancer Treated with Primary Chemotherapy: Do Patients with a Complete Pathological Response Differ from Those with Residual Tumour in the Breast?

This study aimed to evaluate patterns of local and distant disease recurrence in patients having primary chemotherapy and compared patterns of relapse in patients with a complete pathological response with those who had residual breast disease. This is an observational study using a sequential series of patients treated with primary chemotherapy. They were followed up for a minimum of 5 years. All data was collected prospectively. Three hundred forty-one consecutive patients with breast cancer were treated with up to eight cycles of doxorubicin-based chemotherapy. Clinical and pathological response rates were evaluated and patients were followed up for disease recurrence (local and distant) and overall survival. Fifty-two patients (16.5%) had a complete pathological response to chemotherapy. Distant disease recurrence occurred in nine patients (17.3%) but no local recurrence was observed. In patients not having a complete pathological response, 86 patients (32.6%) subsequently developed metastases. Local recurrence of disease occurred in 12 (4.5%). There was a statistically significant difference in overall survival between patients whose tumours had a complete pathological response compared with patients who had residual disease in the breast following chemotherapy (88% versus 70% at 5 years, p = 0.036). Following primary chemotherapy, about 84% of patients had residual disease in the breast. Surgery is necessary to ensure complete removal of residual tumour and excellent rates of local control are achievable. A complete pathological response is associated with fewer local and distant recurrences as well as improved survival although there are no differences in time to development of metastatic relapse.

Clinical and Radiologic Assessments to Predict Breast Cancer Pathologic Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

PURPOSE

To prospectively compare the ability of clinical examination, mammography, vascularity-sensitive ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to determine pathologic complete response (CR) in breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Participants were women with primary measurable, operable invasive breast cancer (Stages I-III) who presented to the University of Michigan Breast Care Center. Eligibility criteria were based on clinical need for chemotherapy as part of the overall treatment plan. The chemotherapy consisted of doxorubicin and docetaxel administered every 3 weeks for four cycles. Tumor size measurements by physical examination and by the three imaging modalities were performed before chemotherapy was initiated and after its completion, prior to definitive surgery. Response criteria were pre-specified in this prospective design, and study radiologists analyzed the mammographic, sonographic and MRI image sets blinded to information from the other modalities and blinded to final histological diagnosis. The pathologic CR rate obtained by the clinical and imaging modalities was compared to pathologic CR as determined pathologically.

RESULTS

41 of 43 enrolled patients had a determination of pathologic response, and 4 patients had a pathologic CR to this chemotherapy (9.8%). The accuracy of physical examination, mammography, ultrasound, and MRI in determining pathologic CR was 75, 89, 82, and 89% respectively (NS).

CONCLUSION

Biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy remains absolutely necessary to determine pathologic CR to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, as the accuracy of current imaging modalities is insufficient to make this determination. The accuracy of mammography, vascularity-sensitive ultrasound, and MRI were not observed to be significantly different.

Preoperative gefitinib versus gefitinib and anastrozole in postmenopausal patients with oestrogen-receptor positive and epidermal-growth-factor-receptor-positive primary breast cancer: a double-blind placebo-controlled phase II randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Some oestrogen-receptor (ER) positive breast cancers express epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), but whether inhibition of EGFR can suppress proliferation of breast cancer cells and ER function is not known.

METHODS

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial of 56 postmenopausal patients with ER-positive and EGFR-positive primary breast cancer, 27 women were randomly assigned to the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor of EGFR gefitinib (250 mg given orally once a day) and the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole (1 mg given orally once a day), and 29 women to gefitinib (250 mg given orally once a day) and placebo of identical appearance to anastrozole given orally once a day, all given for 4-6 weeks before surgery. Primary outcome was inhibition of tumour-cell proliferation, as measured by Ki67 antigen labelling index. Secondary outcomes were reduction in EGFR phosphorylation at Tyr 845, reduction in ER phosphorylation at Ser 118, tumour size, and toxic effects. Analyses were by intention to treat.

FINDINGS

Patients assigned gefitinib and anastrozole had a greater reduction from pretreatment values in proliferation-related Ki67 labelling index than did those assigned gefitinib alone (mean % reduction 98.0 [95% CI 96.1-98.9] vs 92.4 [85.1-96.1]; difference between groups 5.6% [5.1-6.0], p=0.0054). Tumour size was reduced by 30-99% (partial response) in 14 of 28 patients assigned gefitinib and [corrected]in 12 of 22 assigned gefitinib, as assessed by ultrasonography. Reduction in phosphorylation of ER at Ser 118 was similar for both groups. Treatment was well tolerated and much the same for both groups.

INTERPRETATION

Single-agent gefitinib and gefitinib combined with anastrozole are well-tolerated and effective treatments for reducing the size of breast tumours and levels of ER phosphorylation when given as neoadjuvant therapy.

The role of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and management of breast cancer

A review of the literature on the current applications of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) indications, their rationale and their place in diagnosis and management of breast cancer was given. Contrast-enhanced breast MRI is developing as a valuable adjunct to mammography and sonography. Its high sensitivity for invasive breast cancer establishes its superiority in evaluation of multifocality/multicentricity, tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, detection of recurrence, and staging. Emerging applications include spectroscopy, usage of new contrast agents, and MRI-guided interventions, including noninvasive treatment of breast cancer. Its potential benefit in screening high-risk women has yet to be established with prospective studies, particularly with regard to false positive results.

The choice of the correct imaging modality in breast cancer management

This brief overview discusses which of the diagnostic options are more reliable and effective for breast cancer imaging with a view to avoiding the unjustified use of techniques that are suboptimal. The technological development of diagnostic imaging has been very impressive, and both radiological (mammography, ultrasonography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging) and nuclear medicine tools (bone scan, planar and SPECT scintigraphy, sentinel node biopsy, positron emission tomography) have helped to overcome past limitations in the detection of small lesions. Furthermore, new approaches have been developed that permit successful differential diagnosis of doubtful lesions and rapid identification of systemic metastases, and allow non-invasive characterisation of the biology of cancer tissue. There is evidence that these advances may have helped in optimising therapeutic strategies. Importantly, the metabolic information provided by nuclear medicine procedures may be combined with the anatomical data supplied by radiological techniques in order to assist in predicting tumour response, planning radiotherapy and monitoring patient outcome. It is difficult to formulate conclusive diagnostic guidelines for application in the work-up of breast cancer, because while the role of some examinations, such as mammography and ultrasonography, is well established, that of others, such as magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography, is still a matter of debate. There is a need for further prospective evaluations with appropriate clinical trials designed to evaluate the impact of these approaches in improving survival and quality of life.