Comparison of breast MRİ and PET-CT methods in the assessment of neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in breast cancer patients

Introduction: Comparison of PET / CT and Mammary MRI on pathologic response based on treatment response in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Material and Method: Files and archive images of 28 patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemotherapy for local advanced breast cancer between November 2012 and March 2017 were evaluated retrospectively. PET/CT and Mammography MR imaging were performed. The breast mass, the axilla, the clinical status of the skin metastases were recorded. According to the pathologic result, there was no response (NR), no lesion complete response (LCR), partial tumor response (PTR) with presence of macroscopic tumor tissue. A progressive disease with an increase of 20 per cent for the longest diameter measured in the lesion on MR, a 20 per cent reduction in partial response and a complete response in the middle of the lesion; The SUV (SUVmax and SUVmean) values measured in PET-CT were classified as progressive disease, a partial response of more than 30 percent reduction, and complete response as lesion disappearance. These results were compared with pathologically classified responses using SPSS 15.00 using Chi-square test and Multinominal Logistic method. Findings: Results of PET-CT and breast MR before and after treatment were compared with Multilomal Logistic. The pseudo-R-square obtained by the breast MR was 0.534, 0.376 for Suvmax obtained by PET-CT, and 0.444 for Suvmean. According to the study, the most prominent pathologic result was the breast MR, followed by the PET-CT with Suvmean values calculated. Compared with PET-CT and breast MR, pseudo-R-square PET-CT was found to be 0.002 and breast MR was 0,131 in terms of axillary involvement, and there was no significant difference between the two methods, but breast MR-in was superior to axillary metastases in evaluating axillary involvement. Compared with PET-CT and Breast MR in terms of skin involvement, 0.366 for pseudo-R-square Breast MR and 0.361 for PET-CT were found, with no significant difference between the two methods but breast MR was was shown to be more sensitive. Conclusion: At the end of treatment, it was observed that Breast MR was more susceptible to detecting pathological response compared to PET-CT, and to evaluate skin and axilla involvement. As a result, breast MR seems to outperform PET CT in order to monitor the treatment response of neoadjuvant breast cancer patients with the need for more extensive studies due to the small number of patients