Assessment and Response to Neoadjuvant Treatments in Breast Cancer: Current Practice, Response Monitoring, Future Approaches and Perspectives.

Neoadjuvant treatments (NAT) for breast cancer (BC) consist in the administration of chemotherapy-more rarely endocrine therapy-before surgery. Firstly, it was introduced 50 years ago to downsize locally advanced (inoperable) BCs. NAT are now widespread and so effective to be used also at the early stage of the disease. NAT are heterogeneous in terms of therapeutic patterns, class of used drugs, dosage, and duration. The poly-chemotherapy regimen and administration schedule are established by a multi-disciplinary team, according to the stage of disease, the tumor subtype and the age, the physical status, and the drug sensitivity of BC patients. Consequently, an accurate monitoring of treatment response can provide significant clinical advantages, such as the treatment de-escalation in case of early recognition of complete response or, on the contrary, the switch to an alternative treatment path in case of early detection of resistance to the ongoing therapy. Future is going toward increasingly personalized therapies and the prediction of individual response to treatment is the key to practice customized care pathways, preserving oncological safety and effectiveness. To gain such goal, the development of an accurate monitoring system, reproducible and reliable alone or as part of more complex diagnostic algorithms, will be promising.

Mammographic density: Comparison of visual assessment with fully automatic calculation on a multivendor dataset.

OBJECTIVES: To compare breast density (BD) assessment provided by an automated BD evaluator (ABDE) with that provided by a panel of experienced breast radiologists, on a multivendor dataset. METHODS: Twenty-one radiologists assessed 613 screening/diagnostic digital mammograms from nine centers and six different vendors, using the BI-RADS a, b, c, and d density classification. The same mammograms were also evaluated by an ABDE providing the ratio between fibroglandular and total breast area on a continuous scale and, automatically, the BI-RADS score. A panel majority report (PMR) was used as reference standard. Agreement (κ) and accuracy (proportion of cases correctly classified) were calculated for binary (BI-RADS a-b versus c-d) and 4-class classification. RESULTS: While the agreement of individual radiologists with the PMR ranged from κ = 0.483 to κ = 0.885, the ABDE correctly classified 563/613 mammograms (92 %). A substantial agreement for binary classification was found for individual reader pairs (κ = 0.620, standard deviation [SD] = 0.140), individual versus PMR (κ = 0.736, SD = 0.117), and individual versus ABDE (κ = 0.674, SD = 0.095). Agreement between ABDE and PMR was almost perfect (κ = 0.831). CONCLUSIONS: The ABDE showed an almost perfect agreement with a 21-radiologist panel in binary BD classification on a multivendor dataset, earning a chance as a reproducible alternative to visual evaluation. KEY POINTS: Individual BD assessment differs from PMR with κ as low as 0.483. An ABDE correctly classified 92 % of mammograms with almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.831). An ABDE can be a valid alternative to subjective BD assessment.