
==== Front
Eur Radiol
Eur Radiol
European Radiology
0938-7994
1432-1084
Springer Berlin Heidelberg Berlin/Heidelberg

38753195
10799
10.1007/s00330-024-10799-0
Commentary
Imaging evaluation of neoadjuvant breast cancer treatment: where do we stand?
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0273-3393
Álvarez-Benito Marina marinaalvarezbenito@telefonica.net

123
1 grid.428865.5 0000 0004 0445 6160 Maimónides Biomedical Research Institute of Córdoba (IMIBIC) Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain
2 grid.411349.a 0000 0004 1771 4667 Breast Cancer Unit, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Reina Sofía University Hospital, Córdoba, Spain
3 https://ror.org/05yc77b46 grid.411901.c 0000 0001 2183 9102 University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain
16 5 2024
16 5 2024
2024
34 10 62716272
10 4 2024
10 4 2024
25 4 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
issue-copyright-statement© European Society of Radiology 2024
==== Body
pmcBreast cancer has become the most commonly diagnosed malignancy among women worldwide. However, there have been improvements in survival from this disease due to screening programs and the use of more effective treatments [1].

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is becoming the standard of care in the treatment of locally advanced breast cancer and is a treatment option for patients with early-stage breast cancer. NAC is associated with higher breast conservation rates and less need for extensive axillary lymph node dissection. The response to NAC also yields prognostic information, as pathologic complete response (pCR) after NAC is strongly associated with better long-term disease-free and overall survival, especially in patients with HER2-positive and triple-negative breast cancer [2].

Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most sensitive method for breast cancer detection and the most accurate imaging test for assessing tumor response to NAC. Both the American College of Radiology and the European Society of Breast Imaging recommend MRI for monitoring NAC efficacy. Evaluating the response to NAC entails comparing pre-and post-treatment MRI scans to analyze changes in maximum tumor dimensions, tumor volume, and enhancement kinetics. However, MRI can overestimate or underestimate residual tumor size after NAC. An accurate measurement of residual tumor after NAC is key to subsequent treatment planning [3–5].

The most frequently used criterion for identifying a complete imaging response is a visual assessment that shows an absence of residual enhancement at the tumor site. However, the significance of persistent T1-weighted lesions without abnormal enhancement on post-NAC MRI tests is unclear [3].

In this issue of European Radiology, the study by Goulam-Houssein et al aims to determine whether persistent T1-weighted lesions without associated abnormal enhancement on post-treatment breast MRI scans signify pCR and to evaluate their correlation with the imaging response on the MRI scans. The retrospective study was conducted on patients with breast cancer treated between January 2011 and December 2018. Patients who had a breast MRI scan pre- and post-NAC followed by surgery were included. Those with distant metastasis, no planned surgery, or pre-surgery radiation, as well as those ineligible for NAC or who had no surgical pathology reports available, were excluded [6].

The authors used the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 to evaluate NAC response through subsequent imaging tests. Patients were deemed to have had an imaging response if they demonstrated either a complete or partial imaging response. A complete imaging response was reported when no residual enhancement was detected on post-NAC MRI studies [6, 7].

pCR was defined according to the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project’s description, characterizing pCR as the absence of invasive residual disease in the breast. Univariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between the final pathological response and the presence of persistent T1-weighted lesions [6, 8].

Out of 319 patients, 294 met the inclusion criteria: 157 had persistent T1-weighted lesions on post-chemotherapy MRI scans, and 137 did not. A persistent T1-weighted lesion indicated the reduced likelihood of pCR (14% vs. 39%; p < 0.001) and imaging response (69% vs. 93%; p < 0.001). The ER+/HER2– breast cancer subtype was associated with significantly reduced pCR rates when compared to other molecular subtypes of invasive cancer, which is consistent with previous studies [6].

The study underscores the importance of persistent T1-weighted lesions on breast MRI scans. They are inversely related to pCR following NAC and could be a key factor in guiding post-NAC treatment decisions. Nonetheless, predicting pCR in patients with NAC prior to surgery remains a challenge [6].

It should be noted that the MRI protocol performed in this study did not include diffusion-weighted sequences, which can provide valuable early information on the effectiveness of NAC [4].

Developments and advances in breast cancer treatment will probably produce increasingly more effective drugs, increasing rates of pCR after NAC. This would allow for minimizing subsequent surgery in both the breast and axilla, with the consequent benefits for women. Some researchers even propose the possibility of omitting surgery after NAC, given the high NAC response rates in specific subgroups of responder patients in whom therapy may render surgery unnecessary. This would require methods that could predict the existence of residual tumor with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 100% [9].

Going forward, it will be necessary to advance in selecting patients who are candidates for NAC and ensuring more accurate assessments that allow for the early identification of patients who will not respond to treatment and those who may present a pCR.

A multimodal pre- and post-NAC assessment, including multiparametric MRI pulse sequences, is necessary for the correct planning of breast and axilla surgery once treatment is completed. New predictive models based on artificial intelligence and radiomic and radiogenomic image analysis combined with clinical and pathological data will play an important role in this scenario, allowing for progress toward more personalized and less aggressive breast cancer treatment [10].

Funding

The author state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Marina Álvarez Benito.

Conflict of interest

The author of this manuscript declares no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was not required.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was not required.

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

Not applicable.

Methodology

Commentary

This comment refers to the article available at 10.1007/s00330-024-10695-7.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. DynaMed (2024). Breast Cancer in Women. EBSCO Information Services. Accessed 4 March de 2024. https://www.dynamed.com/condition/breast-cancer-in-women
2. Houssami N Macaskill P von Minckwitz G Marinovich ML Mamounas E Metaanalysis of the association of breast cancer subtype and pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy Eur J Cancer 2012 48 3342 3354 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.05.023 22766518
Houssami N, Macaskill P, von Minckwitz G, Marinovich ML, Mamounas E (2012) Metaanalysis of the association of breast cancer subtype and pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer 48:3342–335422766518 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.05.023
3. American College of Radiology ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Monitoring Response to Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy for Breast Cancer, revised 2022. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/3099208/Narrative/, accessed in March 15, 2024
4. Mann RM Balleyguier C Batlzer PA Breast MRI: EUSOBI recommendations for women’s information Eur Radiol 2015 25 3669 3678 10.1007/s00330-015-3807-z 26002130
Mann RM, Balleyguier C, Batlzer PA et al (2015) Breast MRI: EUSOBI recommendations for women’s information. Eur Radiol 25:3669–3678. 10.1007/s00330-015-3807-z26002130 10.1007/s00330-015-3807-z
5. Fowler AM Mankoff DA Joe BN Imaging neoadjuvant therapy response in breast cancer Radiology 2017 285 358 375 10.1148/radiol.2017170180 29045232
Fowler AM, Mankoff DA, Joe BN (2017) Imaging neoadjuvant therapy response in breast cancer. Radiology 285:358–37529045232 10.1148/radiol.2017170180
6. Goulam-Houssein S, Ye XY, Fleming R et al (2024) Evaluating persistent T1-weighted lesions without concurrent abnormal enhancement on breast MRI in neoadjuvant chemotherapy patients: implications for complete pathological response. Eur Radiol 10.1007/s00330-024-10695-7
7. Eisenhauer EA Therasse P Bogaerts J New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1) Eur J Cancer 2009 45 228 247 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026 19097774
Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–24719097774 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
8. Fisher B Bryant J Wolmark N Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer J Clin Oncol 1998 16 2672 2685 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.8.2672 9704717
Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N et al (1998) Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 16:2672–26859704717 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.8.2672
9. Rauch GM Adrada BE Kuerer HM van la Parra RFD Leung JWT Yang WT Multimodality imaging for evaluating response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017 208 290 299 10.2214/AJR.16.17223 27809573
Rauch GM, Adrada BE, Kuerer HM, van la Parra RFD, Leung JWT, Yang WT (2017) Multimodality imaging for evaluating response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208:290–29927809573 10.2214/AJR.16.17223
10. Gu J Tong T Xu D Deep learning radiomics of ultrasonography for comprehensively predicting tumor and axillary lymph node status after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: a multicenter study Cancer 2023 129 356 366 10.1002/cncr.34540 36401611
Gu J, Tong T, Xu D et al (2023) Deep learning radiomics of ultrasonography for comprehensively predicting tumor and axillary lymph node status after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: a multicenter study. Cancer 129:356–366. 10.1002/cncr.3454036401611 10.1002/cncr.34540
