Fengying Yang1,#, Dandan Xiong2,#, Liufang Liao1, Xiaohua Lu1, Hanwen Zhang1, Xiangzhi Li2,3,*, Linling Huang1,*
1Department of Breast Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou 545006, Guangxi, China.
2Department of Statistics, School of Science, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou 545006, Guangxi, China.
3Department of Public Health, School of Medicine, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou 545006, Guangxi, China.
#Both authors contributed equally to this article.
*Corresponding author: Xiangzhi Li, Linling Huang
Abstract
Background: The diagnosis of breast cancer (BC) lesions is a major factor influencing the treatment of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). This study evaluated the accuracy of Mammography (MG), ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting BC lesions during NAC treatment for BC. Methods: Our study selected 226 cases of BC patients who were treated and discharged from our hospital between 2021 and 2023 as subjects. The primary diagnosis of these subjects was invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. They all received NAC and surgical treatment during their hospitalization. Immunohistochemistry was used to determine the molecular type of BC in the subjects. MG, US, and MRI were employed to assess tumor size preoperatively. ROC curves and Pearson correlation analysis were used to evaluate the clinical diagnostic accuracy and significance of the differences. Results: In comparison with pathology, the three imaging modalities showed significant differences (p<0.001) in detecting tumor size in all tumor groups, HR-/HER2+ groups, and HR+/HER2+ groups. Regarding accuracy, the highest accuracy rates were observed in the HR+/HER2- group, with respective percentages of 86% (nMG=86/108), 85% (nUS=92/108), and 83% (nMRI=89/108). In the HR+/HER2+ group, overestimation of tumor size was more common with MRI and US (48%, 27%). In the TNBC group, underestimation of tumor size was more common with MG (19%). For clinical diagnostic efficacy, ROC curves confirmed that the AUC values of all curves were greater than 0.5. Moreover, the sensitivity of MRI and US was similar and higher than that of MG detection. The correlation between pathological tumor size and MRI or US was highest in the HR+/HER2+ group (r=0.767, r=0.792). Conclusion: The accuracy and relevance of MG, US, and MRI vary for patients with different molecular types. Compared to MG and US, MRI has a higher correlation with pathology and greater accuracy for various types of patients. Therefore, preoperative MRI examination is more important.
References
[1] Xia C, Dong X, Li H, et al. Cancer statistics in China and United States, 2022: profiles, trends, and determinants. Chin Med J (Engl). 2022;135(5):584-90.
[2] Cao W, Chen HD, Yu YW, et al. Changing profiles of cancer burden worldwide and in China: a secondary analysis of the global cancer statistics 2020. Chin Med J (Engl). 2021;134(7):783-91.
[3] Atzori G, Franchelli S, Gipponi M, et al. Inferior pedicle reduction mammoplasty as corrective surgery after breast conserving surgery and radiation therapy. J Pers Med. 2022;12(10).
[4] Haraldsdottir KH, Jonsson T, Halldorsdottir AB, et al. Tumor size of invasive breast cancer on magnetic resonance imaging and conventional imaging (mammogram/ultrasound): comparison with pathological size and clinical implications. Scand J Surg. 2017;106(1):68-73.
[5] Li P, Li L, Xiu B, et al. The prognoses of young women with breast cancer (≤35 years) with different surgical options: a propensity score matching retrospective cohort study. Front Oncol. 2022;12:795023.
[6] Kim H, Lee SB, Nam SJ, et al. Survival of breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy versus total mastectomy in early breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(9):5039-47.
[7] de Boniface J, Szulkin R, Johansson ALV. Survival after breast conservation vs mastectomy adjusted for comorbidity and socio-economic status. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(7):628.
[8] Cortadellas T, Argacha P, Acosta J, et al. Estimation of tumor size in breast cancer comparing clinical examination, mammography, ultrasound and MRI-correlation with the pathological analysis of the surgical specimen. Gland Surg. 2017;6(4):330-5.
[9] 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.
[10] Reig B, Lewin AA, Du L, et al. Breast MRI for evaluation of response to neoadjuvant therapy. Radiographics. 2021;41(3):665-79.
[11] Amioka A, Masumoto N, Gouda N, et al. Ability of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography to determine clinical responses of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2016;46(4):303-9.
[12] Graeser M, Schrading S, Gluz O, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound for prediction of residual tumor size in early breast cancer within the ADAPT subtrials. Breast Cancer Res. 2021;23(1):36.
[13] Gampenrieder SP, Peer A, Weismann C, et al. Radiologic complete response (rCR) in contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance im-aging (CE-MRI) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer predicts recurrence-free survival but not pathologic complete response (pCR). Breast Cancer Res. 2019;21(1):19.
[14] De Los SJ, 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(10):1776-83.
[15] van Ramshorst MS, Loo CE, Groen EJ, et al. MRI predicts pathologic complete response in HER2-positive breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;164(1):99-106.
[16] Um E, Kang JW, Lee S, et al. Comparing accuracy of mammography and magnetic resonance imaging for residual calcified lesions in breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant systemic therapy. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018;18(5):e1087-91.
[17] Kim YS, Chang JM, Moon HG, et al. Residual mammographic microcalcifications and enhancing lesions on MRI after neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer: correlation with histopathologic residual tumor size. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(4):1135-42.
[18] Feliciano Y, Mamtani A, Morrow M, et al. Do calcifications seen on mammography after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer always need to be excised? Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(6):1492-8.
How to cite this paper
The Comparative Clinical Value of Mammography, Ultrasound, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Predicting the Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer in Radiological Diagnosis
How to cite this paper: Fengying Yang, Dandan Xiong, Liufang Liao, Xiaohua Lu, Hanwen Zhang, Xiangzhi Li, Linling Huang. (2025) The Comparative Clinical Value of Mammography, Ultrasound, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Predicting the Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer in Radiological Diagnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine Research, 9(3), 248-257.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/ijcemr.2025.05.001