Abstract:

Breast cancer is the most frequent malignant disease in women in the Russian Federation. To reduce the mortality from breast cancer, various measures were used, of which mammographic screening proved its effectiveness. In recent decades, the active process of informatization of health care system in the Russian Federation has predetermined the need to introduce various information systems, including in the screening processes. Thus, on the basis of Research Institute of Clinical and Experimental Radiology of the federal state budget institution «National Research Center of Oncology N.N.Blokhin» the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation it was developed a system SDRR-MS (System Description, Recommendations and Reporting of Mammography Screening), which can be used both in screening and in diagnostic processes. The system focused on educational process and standardization of a routine practice of radiologists and X-ray technicians in the breast examination. The system allows to unite an unlimited number of hospitals, while standardization processes are realized by means of a formalized description protocol, elaborated on the basis of the existing international standard BI-RADS. This article is focused on one of system component, intended for the description of x-ray breast examination. 

References 

1.     Klinicheskie rekomendacii AOR po raku molochnoj zhelezy. Klinicheskie rekomendacii Associacii Onkologov Rossii [Recommendations of the AOR for breast cancer. Clinical recommendations of the Association of Oncologists of Russia.]. 2014; 84S [In Russ].

2.    Prikaz Ministerstva zdravoohranenija RF №36an ot 03 fevralja 2015 goda «Ob utverzhdenii porjadka provedenija dispanserizacii opredelennyh grupp vzroslogo naselenija» [Order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation No. 36an of February 3, 2015 «On approval of the procedure for the clinical examination of certain groups of adults».] [In Russ] https://www.rosminzdrav.ru/documents/8542-prikazministerstva-zdravoohraneniya-rossiyskoy-federatsii-ot-3-fevralya- 2015-g-36an-ob-utverzhdenii-poryadkaprovedeniya-dispanserizatsii-opredelennyh-grupp-vzroslogo-naseleniya

3.     Kochergina N.V., Ivankina O.V., Zamogil'naja Ja.A., Bludov A.B. Pervye rezul'taty distancionnogo mammograficheskogo skrininga raka molochnoj zhelezy [First results of remote mammographic screening of breast cancer.]. Rossijskij onkologicheskijzhurnal. 2014; 3: 15-18 [In Russ].

4.     Kochergina N.V., Bludov A.B, Shhipahina Ja.A., Ivankina O.V. Novye napravlenija uluchshenija skrininga raka molochnoj zhelezy [New directions for improving of screening for breast cancer.] Vestnik rentgenologii i radiologii. 2016; 97(6): 333-339 [In Russ].

5.     Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (DCSC) http://www.bcsc-research.org/data/ptlong6.pdf

6.     Perri N. Evropejskoe rukovodstvo po obespecheniju kachestva pri skrininge i diagnostike raka molochnoj zhelezy [European guidelines for quality assurance in the screening and diagnosis of breast cancer.]. Health & Consumer Protection, Directorate-General. 2010. 4th edition [In Russ].

7.    Sinicyn V.E. Sistema opisanij i obrabotki dannyh issledovanija molochnoj zhelezy [Система описаний и обработки данных исследований груди.]. Mammologicheskij atlas. Izd. Medpraktika-M. 2010; 464S [In Russ].

8.     Metodicheskie rekomendacii k prikazu №154 ot 15 marta 2006 goda «O merah sovershenstvovanija medicinskoj pomoshhi pri zabolevanijah molochnoj zhelezy» [Methodical recommendations to the order number 154 from March 15, 2006 «On measures to improve medical care for breast diseases».] [In Russ].

9.     Koljadina I.V., Poddubnaja I.V., Komov D.V. Skrining raka molochnoj zhelezy:mirovoj opyt i perspektivy [Breast cancer screening: world experience and perspectives.] Rossijskij onkologicheskijzhurnal. 2015; 1:42-46 [In Russ].

10.   Poddubnaja I.V., Koljadina I.V., Kalashnikov N.D., Borisov A.A., Makarova M.V. Populjacinnyj cionnyj «portret» raka molochnoj zhelezy v Rossii: analiz dannyh rossijskogo registra [Population «portrait» of breast cancer in Russia: data analysis of the Russian register.]. Sovremennaja onkologija. 2015; 17(1):25-29 [ In Russ].

Abstract:

Aim: was to estimate the diagnostic value of MRI (qualitative and tumor size analysis) in the evaluation of preoperative chemotherapy in patients with soft tissue sarcomas on different stages of examination.

Material and methods: we analyzed data of 74 patients with soft tissue sarcomas. All patients underwent MRI. Patients were examined before, in the middle and at the end of the course of the preoperative chemotherapy

Results: the sensitivity (predilection of Grade III-IV pathologic response) of qualitative MRI signs in the middle of the neoadjuvant chemotherapy (after 2-3 cycles) was 73%, the specificity (predilection of Grade I-II pathologic response) was 88%; 69% and 100% for maximum tumor size evaluation, correspondingly At the end of the preoperative treatment, values of the sensitivity and specificity of qualitative MRI signs decreased to 50% and 78%, respectively, the sensitivity of maximum tumor size estimation decreased to 31%, while specificity remained the same -100%.

Conclusion: MRI with qualitative and tumor size analysis is an informative method in assessment of preoperative chemotherapy of soft tissue sarcomas.

References

1.     Fletcher C.D.M. WHO Classification of Tumors: Pathology and Genetics of Tumors of Soft Tissue and Bone. Lyon: IARC Press. 2002;312 p.

2.     Putnam J.B. Metastases from Sarcoma American Cancer Society Atlas of Clinical Oncology: Soft Tissue Sarcomas. Hamiliton-Ontario: BC Decker Inc. 2002; 266-278.

3.    Aliev M.D. Sovremennye podhody k lecheniju sarkommjagkih tkanej[Modern approaches to the treatment of soft tissue sarcomas.]. Prakticheskaja onkologija. 2004; 5(4):250- 255 [In Russ].

4.     Pisters P.W.T., Patel S.R, Varma D.G.K., et al. Preoperative chemotherapy for stage IIIB extremity soft tissue sarcoma: long term results from single institution. J. Clin.Oncol. 1997;15:3481-3487.

5.     Gortzak E., Azzarelli A., Buesa J. et al. A randomized phase II study on neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for ‘high-risk’ adult soft-tissue sarcoma. Europ. J. Cacer. 2001; 37:1096-1103.

6.     Lucas D.R., Kshirsagar M.P., Biermann J.S. et al. Histologic alterations from neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-grade extremity soft tissue sarcoma: clinicopathological correlation. Oncologist. 2008;13( 4):451-458.

7.     WHO Handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. WHO Publication, Geneva. 1979;48:1-45.

8.     Park J.O., Lee S.I., Song S.Y et al. Measuring response in solid tumors: comparision of RECIST and WHO response criteria. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2003; 33: 533-537.

9.     Therasse P., Arbuck S.G., Eisenhauer E.A., et al.New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors (RECIST guidelines). J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205-216.

10.   Eisenhauer E.A., Therasse P., Bogaerts J., et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur. J. Cancer. 2009;45: 228-247.

11.   Tuma R.S. Sometimes size doesn’t matter: reevaluating RECIST and tumor response end points. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2006; 98: 1272-1274.

12.   Gehan E.A., Tefft M.C. Will there be resistance to the RECIST (tumor Response Criteria in Solid Tumors. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2000; 92: 179-181.

13.   Vanel D., Lacombe M.J., Couanet D. et al. Musculoskeletal tumors: follow-up with MR imaging after treatment with surgery and radiation therapy. Radiology. 1987; 164(1): 243-245.

14.   Siegel M.J. Magnetic resonance imaging of musculoskeletal soft tissue masses. Radiol.Clin. North. Am. 2001; 39(4):701-720.

15.   Fletcher B.D., Reddick W.E., Taylor J.S. Dynamic MR imaging of musculoskeletal neoplasm. Radiology. 1997; 200:869-872.

16.   Biondetti P.R., Ehman R.L. Soft-tissue sarcomas: use of textural patterns in skeletal muscle as a diagnostic feature in postoperative MR imaging. Radiology. 1992:183(3):845-848.

17.   Wang X., Jacobs M., Fayad L. Therapeutic Response in Musculoskeletal Soft Tissue Sarcomas: Evaluation by Magnetic Resonance Imaging. NMR Biomed. 2011;24(6):750-763.

18.   Sanchez R.B., Quinn S.F., Walling A., et al Musculoskeletal neoplasms after intraarterial chemotherapy: correlation of MR images with pathologic specimens. Radiology. 1990;174:237-240.

19.   Erlemann R., Sciuk J., Bosse A., et al. Response of osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma to preoperative chemotherapy: assessment with dynamic and static MR imaging and skeletal scintigraphy. Radiology. 1990; 175:791-796.

20.   Glazer H.S., Lee K.T. J., Levitt R.G. et al Radiation fibrosis: differentiation from recurrent tumor by MR imaging. Radiology. 1985;156:721-726.

21.   Glazkova T.G. Ocenka kachestva metodov diagnostiki i prognoza v medicine [Quality of assessment methods for diagnosis and prognosis in medicine.]. Vestnik ONC AMN Rossii. 1994;2:3-11 [In Russ].

22.   Eisenhauer E.A. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur. J. Cancer. 2009;45:228-247.

23.   Tuma R.S. Sometimes size doesn’t matter: reevaluating RECIST and tumor response end points J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1272-1274.

24.   Gehan E.A. Will there be resistance to the RECIST (tumor Response Criteria in Solid Tumors). J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2000;92:179-181.

25.   Stacchiotti S., Collini P., Messina A. et al. High- grade soft-tissue sarcomas: tumor response assessment - pilot study to assess the correlation between radiologic and pathologic response by using RECIST and Choi criteria. Radiology. 2009;251:447-456.

26.   Carl Jaffe C. Response assistment in clinical trials: Implications for sarcoma clinical trial design. Oncologist. 2008;13(2):14-18.

27.   Choi H. Response evaluation of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. H. Choi. Oncologist. 2008;13(2):4-7.