Skip to main content

Table 2 False-negative rates and negative predictive values for predicting pathologic complete response in mammography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound

From: Selective elimination of breast cancer surgery in exceptional responders: historical perspective and current trials

Study Mammography Ultrasound Magnetic resonance imaging PET/CT
  NPV (%) FNR (%) NPV (%) FNR (%) NPV (%) FNR (%) NPV (%) FNR (%)
Breast         
Schott et al. [19] 91 9 91 9 94 6
Peintinger et al. [18] NPV 93, FNR 7
Chen et al. [38] 74 26
Bhattacharyya et al. [39] 96
Keune et al. [17] 86 85
Croshaw et al. [20] 30 70 33 67 44 56
De Los Santos et al. [16] 47a
Schaefgen et al. [21] 52 13 51 24 60 4
Axilla         
Kuerer et al. [40] 44
Vlastos et al. [41] 49
Klauber-Demore et al. [42] 52 48
Hsiang et al. [43]      78 38
Javid et al. [29] 81 19  
Rousseau et al. [44] 29 95
Hieken et al. [28] 57 43 61
Koolen et al. [45] 73 27
Boughey et al. [31] 9.8b
  1. aNPV increased to 60 % among triple-negative cases and 62 % among hormone receptor-negative HER2-positive cases
  2. bOverall, 39.0 % of patients had pathologic negative nodes at axillary dissection, yet 70.4 % of axillary ultrasound images were classified as normal, suggesting that ultrasound lacks specificity to determine a pathologic complete nodal response. The FNR rate of sentinel lymph node biopsy based on ultrasound findings after chemotherapy was not significantly different. However, if only patients with normal axillary ultrasound images were selected, the FNR would drop from 12.6 % to 9.8 % for sentinel node biopsy
  3. CT computed tomography, FNR false negative rate, NPV negative predictive value, PET positron emission tomography