Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Preoperative MRI and Its Impact on Surgical Outcomes in Patients with Triple Negative Breast Cancer Treated with Primary Surgery: Did New Margin Guidelines or Cavity Shave Margins Practice Diminish the Role of Preoperative MRI?

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Results of an earlier retrospective study from our institution suggested that patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) who had preoperative MRI may have had an improved local recurrence rate (LRR) after breast conserving surgery (BCS). We aimed to clarify the impact of preoperative MRI on surgical outcomes in an expanded TNBC cohort treated by BCS in a contemporary era.

Methods

Our study cohort comprised 648 patients with TNBC who underwent BCS between 2009 and 2018. Demographic and clinical characteristics were compared between those with (n = 292, 45.1%) and without (n = 356, 54.9%) preoperative MRI. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess the association of preoperative MRI with surgical outcomes.

Results

The crude LRR of 3.5% was lower than previously reported. Univariable analyses demonstrated that the LRR and re-excision rates in the MRI and no-MRI groups were 3.4 and 3.7%, 21.6% and 27.2%, p = 0.876 and p = 0.10, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analyses demonstrated that preoperative MRI was not associated with a lower LRR: odds ratio (OR) = 1.42 (p = 0.5). During our study period, new margin guidelines and shave margins practice were adopted in 2014 and 2015. To account for their effects, the year of diagnosis/surgery and other clinical variables were adjusted in multivariable logistic regression and inverse probability weighting models to demonstrate that preoperative MRI remained associated with a lower re-excision risk, OR 0.56, p = 0.04l; and a lower re-excision rate, 23.15% versus 36.0%, p < 0.01, respectively.

Conclusions

Our findings suggested that patients with TNBC anticipating BCS may benefit from preoperative MRI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, et al. Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. JCO. 2008;26(19):3248–58. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.15.2108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004;233(3):830–49. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2333031484.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brennan ME, Houssami N, Lord S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging screening of the contralateral breast in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of incremental cancer detection and impact on surgical management. JCO. 2009;27(33):5640–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.21.5756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lehman CD. Clinical indications: what is the evidence? Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:S82–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0720-048X(12)70033-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Houssami N, Turner R, Morrow M. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: meta-analysis of surgical outcomes. Ann Surg. 2013;257(2):249–55. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31827a8d17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9714):563–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)62070-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Peters NHGM, van Esser S, van den Bosch MAAJ, et al. Preoperative MRI and surgical management in patients with nonpalpable breast cancer: The MONET—Randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(6):879–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.11.035.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Houssami N, Turner RM, Morrow M. Meta-analysis of pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and surgical treatment for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;165(2):273–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4324-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Dogan BE, Turnbull LW. Imaging of triple-negative breast cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2012;23:vi23–vi29. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mds191

  10. Dogan BE, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Gilcrease M, Dryden MJ, Yang WT. Multimodality imaging of triple receptor-negative tumors with mammography, ultrasound, and MRI. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(4):1160–6. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.2355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Yang WT, Dryden M, Broglio K, et al. Mammographic features of triple receptor-negative primary breast cancers in young premenopausal women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;111(3):405–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-007-9810-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wang Y, Ikeda DM, Narasimhan B, et al. Estrogen receptor-negative invasive breast cancer: imaging features of tumors with and without human epidermal growth factor receptor Type 2 Overexpression. Radiology. 2008;246(2):367–75. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2462070169.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Moffa G, Galati F, Collalunga E, et al. Can MRI biomarkers predict triple-negative breast cancer? Diagnostics. 2020;10(12):1090. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10121090.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Nguyen PL, Taghian AG, Katz MS, et al. Breast cancer subtype approximated by estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER-2 is associated with local and distant recurrence after breast-conserving therapy. JCO. 2008;26(14):2373–8. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.14.4287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Arvold ND, Taghian AG, Niemierko A, et al. Age, breast cancer subtype approximation, and local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy. JCO. 2011;29(29):3885–91. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.36.1105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Vapiwala N, Hwang WT, Kushner CJ, Schnall MD, Freedman GM, Solin LJ. No impact of breast magnetic resonance imaging on 15-year outcomes in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ or early-stage invasive breast cancer managed with breast conservation therapy: Breast MRI and Breast Conservation Therapy. Cancer. 2017;123(8):1324–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30479.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chagpar AB, Killelea BK, Tsangaris TN, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of cavity shave margins in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(6):503–10. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1504473.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, et al. Society of surgical oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(3):704–16. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3481-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Moy L, Niell B, Monsees B, Sickles EA. Breast cancer screening in women at higher-than-average risk: recommendations from the ACR. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(3):408–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.11.034.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mainiero MB, Moy L, Baron P, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria® breast cancer screening. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(11):S383–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.08.044.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee J, Tanaka E, Eby PR, et al. Preoperative breast MRI: surgeons’ patient selection patterns and potential bias in outcomes analyses. Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(4):923–32. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46(3):399–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.568786.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Statist Med. 2015;34(28):3661–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cole SR, Hernan MA. Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168(6):656–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwn164.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Masuda N, Lee SJ, Ohtani S, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine for breast cancer after preoperative chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(22):2147–59. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1612645.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Landercasper J, Attai D, Atisha D, et al. Toolbox to reduce lumpectomy reoperations and improve cosmetic outcome in breast cancer patients: The American Society of Breast Surgeons Consensus Conference. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(10):3174–83. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4759-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Bleicher RJ, Ciocca RM, Egleston BL, et al. Association of routine pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging with time to surgery, mastectomy rate, and margin status. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209(2):180–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.04.010.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Solin LJ, Orel SG, Hwang WT, Harris EE, Schnall MD. Relationship of breast magnetic resonance imaging to outcome after breast-conservation treatment with radiation for women with early-stage invasive breast carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ. JCO. 2008;26(3):386–91. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.09.5448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Endocrine and Oncologic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Laura Burkbauer MD, Macy Goldbach BS, Daniel I. Hoffman MD, Ari D. Brooks MD, FACS & Julia Tchou MD, PhD, FACS

  2. Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA

    Andreas Giannakou MD

  3. Department of Surgery, Penn Medicine Princeton Health, Princeton, NJ, USA

    Rachel Dultz MD, FACS

  4. Department of Surgery, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Dahlia M. Sataloff MD, FACS

  5. Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Luke Keele PhD

Authors
  1. Laura Burkbauer MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Macy Goldbach BS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel I. Hoffman MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andreas Giannakou MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rachel Dultz MD, FACS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ari D. Brooks MD, FACS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dahlia M. Sataloff MD, FACS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Luke Keele PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Julia Tchou MD, PhD, FACS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia Tchou MD, PhD, FACS.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

The authors report no relevant financial disclosures.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 172 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Burkbauer, L., Goldbach, M., Hoffman, D.I. et al. Preoperative MRI and Its Impact on Surgical Outcomes in Patients with Triple Negative Breast Cancer Treated with Primary Surgery: Did New Margin Guidelines or Cavity Shave Margins Practice Diminish the Role of Preoperative MRI?. Ann Surg Oncol 29, 4079–4088 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-022-11545-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-022-11545-w

Search

Navigation