Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 1111–1117 | Cite as

Histopathologic Correlation of Residual Mammographic Microcalcifications After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Breast Cancer

  • Beatriz E. Adrada
  • Lei Huo
  • Deanna L. Lane
  • Elsa M. Arribas
  • Erika Resetkova
  • Wei Yang
Breast Oncology



This study was designed to determine the histopathologic correlation at surgery of residual mammographic calcifications in patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for locally advanced breast cancer (LABC).


This single-institution, retrospective study was approved by the Institutional Review Board and was Health Insurance Portability and Accountability act compliant. Women with LABC who underwent NAC between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2008 and had mammography performed before and after NAC available for review were included in this study. The extent of microcalcifications associated with cancer before and after the completion of NAC was correlated with histopathology and biomarker status.


Of 494 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 106 demonstrated microcalcifications on pre-, post-chemotherapy, or both sets of mammograms and were included in this study. Of 106 women, 31 (29 %) had invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and 60 (57 %) had both IDC and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Microcalcifications decreased or remained stable in 76 (72 %) patients after completion of NAC. Correlation of microcalcifications with histopathology after NAC showed that 43 (40.6 %) patients had tumors associated with benign pathology. Of 32 patients with pathologic complete response, calcifications were associated with DCIS in 9 (9 %) and benign findings in 21 (22 %). The proportion of residual malignant calcifications was higher in ER+ versus ER− patients after NAC.


The extent of calcifications on mammography following NAC does not correlate with the extent of residual disease in up to 22 % of women; this information may impact surgical planning in subsets of women with breast cancer.


Estrogen Receptor Advanced Breast Cancer Invasive Ductal Carcinoma Invasive Lobular Carcinoma Locally Advanced Breast Cancer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



No disclosures are declared by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Redden MH, Fuhrman GM. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of breast cancer. Surg Clin North Am. 2013;93(2):493–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McLaughlin SA. Surgical management of the breast: breast conservation therapy and mastectomy. Surg Clin North Am. 2013;93(2):411–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Londero V, Bazzocchi M, Del Frate C, Puglisi F, Di Loreto C, Francescutti G, Zuiani C. Locally advanced breast cancer: comparison of mammography, sonography and MR imaging in evaluation of residual disease in women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Radiol. 2004;14(8):1371–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Los Santos JF, Cantor A, Amos KD, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of pathologic response in patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic treatment for operable breast cancer: Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium trial 017. Cancer. 2013;119(10):1776–83.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Sullivan TD, Leproux A, Chen JH, et al. Optical imaging correlates with magnetic resonance imaging breast density and reveals composition changes during neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res. 2013;15:R14. doi: 10.1186/bcr3389.
  6. 6.
    Hylton NM, Blume JD, Bernreuter WK, et al. Locally advanced breast cancer: MR imaging for prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy—results from ACRIN 6657/I-SPY TRIAL. Radiology. 2012;263(3):663–72.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tateishi U, Miyake M, Nagaoka T, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: prediction of pathologic response with PET/CT and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging–prospective assessment. Radiology. 2012;263(1):53–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dershaw DD, Drossman S, Liberman L, Abramson A. Assessment of response to therapy of primary breast cancer by mammography and physical examination. Cancer. 1995;75(8):2093–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Helvie MA, Joynt LK, Cody RL, Pierce LJ, Adler DD, Merajver SD. Locally advanced breast carcinoma: accuracy of mammography versus clinical examination in the prediction of residual disease after chemotherapy. Radiology. 1996;198(2):327–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moskovic EC. Mammography in the assesment of response to medical treatment of large primary breast cancer. Clin Radiol. 1993;47:339–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    American College of Radiology (ACR). ACR breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 4th edn. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwartz GF, Birchansky CA, Komarnicky LT, et al. Induction chemotherapy followed by breast conservation for locally advanced carcinoma of the breast. Cancer. 1994;73(2):362–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Singletary SE, McNeese MD, Hortobagyi GN. Feasibility of breast-conservation surgery after induction chemotherapy for locally advanced breast carcinoma. Cancer. 1992;69(11):2849–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Brambilla C, Ferrari L, Moliterni A, Terenziani M, Zambetti M. Primary chemotherapy in operable breast cancer: eight-year experience at the Milan Cancer Institute. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(1):93–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vinnicombe SJ, MacVicar AD, Guy RL, Sloane JP, Powles TJ, Knee G, Husband JE. Primary breast cancer: mammographic changes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with pathologic correlation. Radiology. 1996;198(2):333–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Segel MC, Paulus DD, Hortobagyi GN. Advanced primary breast cancer: assessment at mammography of response to induction chemotherapy. Radiology. 1988;169(1):49–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Libshitz HI, Montague ED, Paulus DD. Calcifications and the therapeutically irradiated breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1977;128(6):1021–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pierce L, Adler D, Helvie M, Lichter A, Merajver S. The use of mammography in breast preservation in locally advanced breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996;34(3):571–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peintinger F, Kuerer HM, Anderson K, et al. Accuracy of the combination of mammography and sonography in predicting tumor response in breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13(11):1443–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Esserman LJ, Berry DA, DeMichele A, et al. Pathologic complete response predicts recurrence-free survival more effectively by cancer subset: results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL–CALGB 150007/150012, ACRIN 6657. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(26):3242–9.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beatriz E. Adrada
    • 1
  • Lei Huo
    • 2
  • Deanna L. Lane
    • 1
  • Elsa M. Arribas
    • 1
  • Erika Resetkova
    • 2
  • Wei Yang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyThe University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Division of Pathology/Lab Medicine, Department of PathologyThe University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations