· Prange A, Bokhof B, Polzer P et al. Higher Detection Rates of Biologically Aggressive Breast Cancers in Mammography Screening than in the Biennial Interval. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2018; DOI: 10.1055/a-0657-3970.

Background Prediction of histological tumor size by post-neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was evaluated in different breast cancer subtypes. Methods Imaging was performed after 12-week NAT in patients enrolled into three neoadjuvant WSG ADAPT subtrials. Imaging performance was analyzed for prediction of residual tumor measuring ≤10 mm and summarized using positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values. Results A total of 248 and 588 patients had MRI and ultrasound, respectively. Tumor size was over- or underestimated by < 10 mm in 4.4% and 21.8% of patients by MRI and in 10.2% and 15.8% by ultrasound. Overall, NPV (proportion of correctly predicted tumor size ≤10 mm) of MRI and ultrasound was 0.92 and 0.83; PPV (correctly predicted tumor size > 10 mm) was 0.52 and 0.61. MRI demonstrated a higher NPV and lower PPV than ultrasound in hormone receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive and in HR−/HER2+ tumors. Both methods had a comparable NPV and PPV in HR−/HER2− tumors. Conclusions In HR+/HER2+ and HR−/HER2+ breast cancer, MRI is less likely than ultrasound to underestimate while ultrasound is associated with a lower risk to overestimate tumor size. These findings may help to select the most optimal imaging approach for planning surgery after NAT. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01815242 (registered on March 21, 2013), NCT01817452 (registered on March 25, 2013), and NCT01779206 (registered on January 30, 2013).

Zusammenfassung Zielsetzung Ermittlung der altersgruppenabhängigen Detektionsraten invasiver Mammakarzinome im Mammografie-Screening einschließlich des Intervalls, differenziert nach immunhistochemischer Subtypisierung als Parameter der intrinsischen Tumoraggressivität. Material und Methode Die Zielgruppe sind 50 – 69-jährige Frauen. Alle in einer Screening-Einheit während der Implementierungsphase 1/2006 – 12/2010 in Screening (Sc)-Untersuchungen und im folgenden 2-jährigen Intervall (Iv) diagnostizierten invasiven Mammakarzinome wurden anhand des Hormonrezeptorstatus (HR) und der Her2-Expression (Her2) folgenden Subtypengruppen zugeordnet: a) HR+ Her2–, b) HR+ Her2 +, c) HR– Her2 + oder d) HR– Her2– (triple-negativ); Her2 + und triple-negativ wurden als aggressiv definiert. Die ermittelten Detektionsraten (DR, ‰) basierten auf 53 375 Sc-Untersuchungen und für das Intervall auf 52 887 Sc-negativen Untersuchungen. Ergebnisse Die DR aller Subtypengruppen waren im Screening höher als im Intervall: (a) 4,95 ‰ (n = 264) vs. 1,00 ‰ (n = 53); b) 0,92 ‰ (n = 49) vs. 0,25 ‰ (n = 13); c) 0,36 ‰ (n = 19) vs. 0,06 ‰ (n = 3); d) 0,39‰ (n = 21) vs. 0,19‰ (n = 10). 77,4 ‰ (89/115) aller aggressiven Mammakarzinome einschließlich des folgenden 2-Jahresintervalls wurden im Screening diagnostiziert. Die Summe der DR aggressiver Karzinome betrug im Screening 1,67‰ und im Intervall 0,49 ‰; dabei lagen die DR bei den 60 – 69-Jährigen [Sc: 2,24 ‰ (51/22 814), Iv: 0,58‰ (13/22 536)] höher als bei den 50 – 59-Jährigen [Sc: 1,24‰ (38/30 561), Iv: 0,43‰ (13/30 351)]. Schlussfolgerung Screening hat das Potenzial einer Diagnosevorverlagerung aggressiver Tumorsubtypen bei einer etwa 3-fach höheren Detektionsrate als im Intervall. In der Zielgruppe bilden 60 – 69-Jährige bezüglich der absoluten Diagnosehäufigkeit eine Risikogruppe mit einer nahezu doppelten Detektionsrate Her2-positiver oder triple-negativer Tumoren im Vergleich zu 50 – 59-Jährigen.

Background: Prediction of histological tumor size by post-neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was evaluated in different breast cancer subtypes.Methods: Imaging was performed after 12-week NAT in patients enrolled into three neoadjuvant WSG ADAPT subtrials. Imaging performance for prediction of tumor size was analyzed across increasing size ranges (≤10, ≤20 and ≤30 mm) and summarized using positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV).Results: 248 and 588 patients had MRI and ultrasound, respectively. Tumor size was over- or underestimated by <10 mm in 4.4% and 21.8% of patients by MRI and in 10.2% and 15.8% by ultrasound. Overall, PPV (correctly predicted tumor size ≤10, ≤20 or ≤30 mm) of MRI and ultrasound increased from 0.61 and 0.72 for ≤10 mm tumors to 0.88 and 0.96 for ≤30 mm tumors; NPV (correctly predicted tumor size >10, >20 or >30 mm) decreased from 0.89 and 0.74 to 0.69 and 0.22. Across all tumor size ranges, ultrasound demonstrated higher PPV than MRI in HR+/HER2+ tumors while both methods had a similarly low PPV in HR-/HER2- and HR-/HER2+ tumors. MRI had a higher NPV than ultrasound with the exception of HR-/HER2- tumors measuring ≤10 and ≤20 mm where both methods had similar NPV. Conclusions: Ultrasound is less likely than MRI to underestimate the size of HR+/HER2+ tumors while MRI is associated with a lower risk to overestimate the size of HR+/HER2+ and HR-/HER2+ tumors. These findings may help to select the most optimal imaging approach for planning surgery after NAT. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01815242 (registration March 21, 2013, NCT01817452 (registration March 25, 2013), NCT01779206 (registration January 30, 2013).