Positional advantages of supine MRI for diagnosis prior to breast‑conserving surgery
- Authors:
- Published online on: April 4, 2023 https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2023.2640
- Article Number: 44
Abstract
Introduction
The number of breast cancer cases is increasing annually throughout the world and it has more than doubled from ~800,000 in 1990 to 1.68 million in 2016(1). The 10-year survival rate for stage I primary breast cancer is >95% with good prognosis; however, that for metastatic/recurrent breast cancer is only ~5% (2). Proper definitive treatment is important to prevent metastasis and recurrence. Surgical treatment is known to have an important role as the initial treatment. The standard surgery for breast cancer is generally mastectomy or partial mastectomy; i.e., breast-conserving surgery (BCS), but it is important to obtain a negative surgical margin, particularly in BCS. A meta-analysis by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group reported that positive surgical margins in BCS increased breast cancer-related mortality (3). Accurate diagnosis of the spread of breast cancer is necessary to obtain negative surgical margins. The gold standard imaging examination for investigating the spread of breast cancer is ultrasound (US) (4). However, for diagnoses made by US, the rate of positive surgical margins is 24-27% (5,6), which is clearly insufficient and requires to be improved. As an alternative technique, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with the patient in the prone position has recently been used for this purpose. The prone position has the advantages of minimal deterioration of image quality due to respiratory movements and of improved ability to examine intraductal components of the mammary glands without distortion, as they are stretched when the breast is ‘hanging’ in this position (7,8). At present, US and MRI in the prone position are in widespread use as standard methods despite a lack of significant results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (6). An RCT conducted in 2001 compared the reoperation rate for BCS between a group with MRI in the prone position (n=816) and a triple assessment group of mammography (MG), US and core needle biopsy (non-MRI group, n=807). There was no significant reduction in the reoperation rate in the MRI group (153/816, 19%) compared with the non-MRI group (156/807, 19%; odds ratio: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.75-1.24, P=0.77) (9). A disadvantage of MRI in the prone position is that it differs from the operating position (10,11). Even if spread of the lesion can be correctly diagnosed, it is considered that a certain shift occurs due to the change in posture between imaging and surgery. The present study was performed based on the notion that supine MRI has an advantage compared with prone MRI because the images are acquired in the same position as the surgical position. In addition, MRI image rendering technology has improved to the point that previous problems associated with supine MRI have been overcome. The aim of the present study was therefore to examine the rate of positive surgical margins for supine MRI.
Patients and methods
Patients
Enrolled in this multi-center retrospective study were 1,150 consecutive patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer who underwent BCS between January 2012 and December 2013 at Sapporo Medical University Hospital, Sapporo Breast Surgical Clinic, Sapporo-Kotoni Breast Clinic, Shin-Sapporo Breast Clinic or Higashi Sapporo Hospital (Sapporo, Japan). Inclusion criteria were as follows: Patients with BCS who underwent preoperative MRI performed in the supine position at the above-mentioned hospitals between January 2012 and December 2013. Patients with bilateral and stage Ⅳ breast cancer were excluded. For all patients, surgeries were performed by certified surgeons and BCS was performed in all cases based on the decision of each surgeon. Surgical margin-negative was defined as no microscopically observable tumor at the margin. MRI was performed using the GE SIGNA Excite 1.5T, GE SIGNA HGX 1.5T (Cytiva) or PHILIPS Ingenia 1.5T Ver.4.3 (Philips Medical Systems, Inc.). There was no standardized technique for partial resection at any of the institutions and the operative method was selected based on curative ability and adaptability. All patients underwent MG, US and clinical best examination. At Sapporo Medical University Hospital (Sapporo, Japan), but no other institution, rapid intraoperative pathological examination was performed in four directions and additional resection was performed if the result was cancer-positive. The final pathological diagnoses were obtained by an individual pathologist at the respective institution or by a dedicated pathologist at an affiliated pathology laboratory. If either non-invasive or invasive cancer was identified, the patient was considered cancer-positive. Furthermore, the margin was compared between patients with different HER2 status.
Statistical analysis
The clinicopathological parameters were compared between the margin-positive and -negative groups using the χ2 test. P<0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. JMP11 software (SAS Institute, Inc.) was used for statistical analysis.
Results
Patients' background
After excluding 25 cases of bilateral breast cancer and stage IV cancer, 1,150 of the 1,175 patients were enrolled in the study (Fig. 1). All of these women (median age, 55 years; range, 29-97 years) underwent MRI in the supine position prior to BCS for breast cancer.
Patients' characteristics
The patient characteristics, rate of positive surgical margins and clinicopathological factors are listed in Table I. Regarding the rate of positive surgical margins determined by supine MRI (primary endpoint), 215/1,150 patients (18.8%) had positive and 930/1,150 (81.2%) had negative margins.
Positive margin rate
The rate of positive surgical margins was substantially higher in patients of the HER2-positive type than in those with HER2-negative type breast cancer (6.5 and 2.9%, respectively; χ2 P=0.0103; Table II).
Table IIComparison of clinicopathological factors between margin-positive and margin-negative cases. |
Discussion
The rate of positive surgical margins for MRI in the supine position in the present study was 18.8%, which is similar to 19.7-20.0%, the rates reported for MRI in the prone position (6,12-14). US may also be used for preoperative imaging and has the advantages of being simple and inexpensive. It may be performed in the operating position; however, it has the disadvantage that only part of the breast may be visualized at a time. For this reason, MRI imaging in the prone position has been employed for preoperative assessment (15). The present results indicated comparable rates of positive margins for supine- and prone-position MRI. As the present data were obtained between 2012 and 2013, it is possible that the current positive margin rate is further reduced when examined by MRI using the most advanced technology. In the present subgroup analysis of tumors with a diameter of 2 cm or less, the positive rate was almost comparable between supine and prone MRI, similar to the results of previous studies (16,17). However, only the tumor size cannot be deduced from the positive rate. The present study indicated an increased rate of positive margins for prone MRI in the case of tumors >2 cm, but this was not the case for supine MRI in the current study. It may be difficult to determine the extent of resection in larger tumors imaged with prone-position MRI, as the relationship of the resection line to the complex tumor differs considerably between the prone imaging and supine surgical positions. By contrast, spatial variation is minimized with supine MRI due to its similarity with the supine surgical position. A total of three RCTs (6,9,12) of perioperative procedures using supine MRI reported percentages of positive margins, although the positive margin rates were different for ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive ductal carcinoma. The combined positive margin rate of 19.7-20.0% is comparable to the 18.8% reported in the present study.
Higher positive margin rates have been reported with both supine- and prone-position MRI for the HER2-positive type compared with non-HER2 type breast cancer (18). In the latter study, there are reports of a higher rate of positive margins in HER-positive breast cancer, while this does not appear to be the case for ER-positive patients. A previous RCT (6) has reported that positive margins are more likely to occur in cases of in situ HER2-positive breast cancer because ductal spread is poorly detected even by MRI. Expected improvements in MRI image-rendering technology should increase iability to detect ductal carcinoma in situ (16,19). Prospective cohort studies will then be required to evaluate the efficacy of the new technology. Previous studies have reported a difference in tumor size between positive and negative surgical margin rates (12-14), but in the present study, no such difference was found.
There are certain limitations to the present study. As its retrospective design may have introduced bias, the results should be interpreted with caution. In the present study, there was no prone position group included, so there was no direct comparison between prone- and supine-position patients. Furthermore, as it appears that there were differences in procedures among the different hospitals included, this may have introduced heterogeneity. However, it may be assumed that the data are meaningful because of the relatively large size of the study cohort. The correlation between phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit α gene mutation and positive resection margins or between PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway-related mutations and positive resection margins is important in the analysis of clinicopathological factors, but lack of preparation, including informed consent, made it difficult to examine this in the present study.
In conclusion, the rate of positive surgical margins in patients who underwent preoperative imaging with supine MRI prior to BCS was 18.8%, which is similar to the 20% reported previously (6). Supine MRI may provide useful information for determining the extent of resection.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
Funding: No funding was received.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Authors' contributions
GK, HS, DK, TMiz and IT conceived and planned the present study in detail. FS, AW, YK, MO, AO, HM, TMik, YY, TMat, TO and HK extracted the entirety of patient data, performed the data collation and put the data into a form in which it could be entered into statistical software. AW, YK and DK performed analysis and interpretation of the patient data. HM, TMiz, HK and TO critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. GK drafted the manuscript. IT provided overall supervision and gave final approval for the version to be published. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. GK and HS confirmed the authenticity of all the raw data.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study adhered to ethical tenets of The Declaration of Helsinki and Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, and was approved by the Clinical Trial Center of Sapporo Medical University, Japan (342-179).
Patient consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
Sharma R: Breast cancer incidence, mortality and mortality-to-incidence ratio (MIR) are associated with human development, 1990-2016: Evidence from global burden of disease study 2016. Breast Cancer. 26:428–445. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Greenberg PA, Hortobagyi GN, Smith TL, Ziegler LD, Frye DK and Buzdar AU: Long-term follow-up of patients with complete remission following combination chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 14:2197–2205. 1996.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Clarke M, Collins R, Darby S, Davies C, Elphinstone P, Evans V, Godwin J, Gray R, Hicks C, James S, et al: Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: An overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 366:2087–2106. 2005.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Eggemann H, Ignatov T, Beni A, Costa SD and Ignatov A: Ultrasonography-guided breast-conserving surgery is superior to palpation-guided surgery for palpable breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 14:40–45. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Koh J, Park AY, Ko KH and Jung HK: Can enhancement types on preoperative MRI reflect prognostic factors and surgical outcomes in invasive breast cancer? Eur Radiol. 29:7000–7008. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Balleyguier C, Dunant A, Ceugnart L, Kandel M, Chauvet MP, Chérel P, Mazouni C, Henrot P, Rauch P, Chopier J, et al: Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging in women with local ductal carcinoma in situ to optimize surgical outcomes: Results from the randomized phase III trial IRCIS. J Clin Oncol. 37:885–892. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Houssami N, Turner RM and Morrow M: Meta-analysis of pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and surgical treatment for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 165:273–283. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Houssami N, Turner R and Morrow M: Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: Meta-analysis of surgical outcomes. Ann Surg. 257:249–255. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, Olivier C, Drew P, Napp V, Hanby A and Brown J: Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 375:563–571. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Yamashiro N, Tozaki M, Ogawa T, Kawano N, Suzuki T, Ozaki S, Sakamoto N, Abe S and Fukuma E: Preoperative MRI marking technique for the planning of breast-conserving surgery. Breast Cancer. 16:223–228. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Sakakibara M, Nagashima T, Sangai T, Nakamura R, Fujimoto H, Arai M, Kazama T, Hashimoto H, Nakatani Y and Miyazaki M: Breast-conserving surgery using projection and reproduction techniques of surgical-position breast MRI in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Am Coll Surg. 207:62–68. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Chen K, Zhu L, Chen L, Li Q, Li S, Qiu N, Yang Y, Su F and Song E: Circumferential shaving of the cavity in breast-conserving surgery: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 26:4256–4263. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Langhans L, Tvedskov TF, Klausen TL, Jensen MB, Talman ML, Vejborg I, Benian C, Roslind A, Hermansen J, Oturai PS, et al: Radioactive seed localization or wire-guided localization of nonpalpable invasive and in situ breast cancer: A randomized, multicenter, open-label trial. Ann Surg. 266:29–35. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
McGhan LJ, Wasif N, Gray RJ, Giurescu ME, Pizzitola VJ, Lorans R, Ocal IT, Stucky CC and Pockaj BA: Use of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging for invasive lobular cancer: Good, better, but maybe not the best? Ann Surg Oncol. 17 (Suppl 3):S255–S262. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Peters NH, van Esser S, van den Bosch MA, Storm RK, Plaisier PW, van Dalen T, Diepstraten SC, Weits T, Westenend PJ, Stapper G, et al: Preoperative MRI and surgical management in patients with nonpalpable breast cancer: The MONET-randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer. 47:879–886. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Lai HW, Huang RH, Wu YT, Chen CJ, Chen ST, Lin YJ, Chen DR, Lee CW, Wu HK, Lin HY and Kuo SJ: Clinicopathologic factors related to surgical margin involvement, reoperation, and residual cancer in primary operable breast cancer-an analysis of 2050 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 44:1725–1735. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Chandwani S, George PA, Azu M, Bandera EV, Ambrosone CB, Rhoads GG and Demissie K: Role of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in the surgical management of early-stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 21:3473–3480. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Bae SJ, Ahn SG, Yoon CI, Yang BS, Lee HW, Son EJ and Jeong J: Measuring tumor extent based on subtypes using magnetic resonance imaging: Radiologic-pathologic discordance and high positive margin rates in breast cancer. J Breast Cancer. 22:453–463. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Petrillo A, Fusco R, Petrillo M, Triunfo F, Filice S, Vallone P, Setola SV, Rubulotta M, Di Bonito M, Rinaldo M, et al: Added value of breast MRI for preoperative diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: Diagnostic performance on 362 patients. Clin Breast Cancer. 17:e127–e134. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar |