Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 5, 2026
Tracking the Mammary Architectural Features and Detecting Breast Cancer with Magnetic Resonance Diffusion Tensor Imaging
Published on: December 15, 2014
Response to neoadjuvant treatment of invasive ductal breast carcinomas including outcome evaluation: MRI analysis by
Joachim Böttcher1, Diane M Renz, Dirk-Michael Zahm
1Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, SRH Clinic Gera , Gera , Germany.
Background:
The aim of this study was to evaluate imaging-based response to standardized neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) regimen by dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance mammography (DCE-MRM), whereas MR images were analyzed by an automatic computer-assisted diagnosis (CAD) system in comparison to visual evaluation. MRI findings were correlated with histopathologic response to NACT and also with the occurrence of metastases in a follow-up analysis.
Patients And Methods:
Fifty-four patients with invasive ductal breast carcinomas received two identical MRI examinations (before and after NACT; 1.5T, contrast medium gadoteric acid). Pre-therapeutic images were compared with post-therapeutic examinations by CAD and two blinded human observers, considering morphologic and dynamic MRI parameters as well as tumor size measurements. Imaging-assessed response to NACT was compared with histopathologically verified response. All clinical, histopathologic, and DCE-MRM parameters were correlated with the occurrence of distant metastases.
Results:
Initial and post-initial dynamic parameters significantly changed between pre- and post-therapeutic DCE-MRM. Visually evaluated DCE-MRM revealed sensitivity of 85.7%, specificity of 91.7%, and diagnostic accuracy of 87.0% in evaluating the response to NACT compared to histopathology. CAD analysis led to more false-negative findings (37.0%) compared to visual evaluation (11.1%), resulting in sensitivity of 52.4%, specificity of 100.0%, and diagnostic accuracy of 63.0%. The following dynamic MRI parameters showed significant associations to occurring metastases: Post-initial curve type before NACT (entire lesions, calculated by CAD) and post-initial curve type of the most enhancing tumor parts after NACT (calculated by CAD and manually).
Conclusions:
In the accurate evaluation of response to neoadjuvant treatment, CAD systems can provide useful additional information due to the high specificity; however, they cannot replace visual imaging evaluation. Besides traditional prognostic factors, contrast medium-induced dynamic MRI parameters reveal significant associations to patient outcome, i.e. occurrence of distant metastases.
