Keywords:
Breast, Ultrasound
Authors:
S. Nakano, K. Fujii, K. Yorozuya, M. Yoshida, J. Kousaka, T. Fukutomi, J. Kimura, T. Ishiguchi; Aichi-gun/JP
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2010/C-0443
Results
All index tumors were detected by sonography and MRI before NAC. After NAC, a cCR was seen in 5 (5 of 14, 36%) patients. MRI correctly diagnosed pCR in 4 (4 of 5, 80%) patients. Detection rate for residual tumors was 9% (1 of 11) for mammography, 33% (3 of 9) for sonography alone, 78% (7 of 9) for MRI, and 89% (8 of 9) for RVS.
It was noteworthy that 5 (5 of 5, 100%) cases with cCR were accurately localized onto the body surface with supplementation using RVS combined with pre- and post-NAC imaging while we were checking sonography (Fig. 1, 2). Although surgical excision was incomplete in 5 (5 of 9, 56%) patients, all positive surgical margins were DCIS (Table. 1).
No | y | Meno | Chemo | TNM | Stage | HG | ER/PR | HER2 | C-Res | Type | US | MRI/CT | Virtual US | P-Res | Margin |
1 | 46 | pre | DTX→FEC | T1N1M0 | IIA | 2 | + | - | cCR | N | no | no | no* | pCR | - |
3 | 64 | post | DTX→FEC | T1N1M0 | IIA | 1 | + | - | PR | S | y | y | y | non | DCIS |
4 | 54 | post | DTX→FEC | T2N1M0 | IIB | 2 | + | - | PR | S | y | y | y | pCR | - |
5 | 64 | post | DTX→FEC | T4N1M0 | IIIB | 2 | + | - | PR | S | no | y | y | non | DCIS |
6 | 31 | pre | DTX→FEC | T1N1M0 | IIA | 3 | + | - | cCR | N | no | no | y* | pCR | - |
7 | 48 | pre | DTX→FEC | T2N1M0 | IIB | 2 | - | + | PR | F | no | y | y | non | DCIS |
8 | 62 | post | DTX→FEC | T2N1M0 | IIB | 2 | + | - | cCR | N | no | no | y* | non | DCIS |
12 | 42 | pre | EC | T1N1M0 | IIB | 2 | + | - | PR | S | no | y | y | non | - |
13 | 38 | pre | EC | T1N1M0 | IIB | 1 | + | - | PR | S | y | y | y | non | DCIS |
Table. 1 Results of breast conserving surgery after NAC
N: non enhancement type, S: shrinkage type, F: fragmentation type, cCR: clinical CR, pCR: pathological CR, y: yes,