Submitted:
07 February 2025
Posted:
10 February 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Patient Selection
2.2. Response Evaluation
2.3. Biopsies After NST and Surgery
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Patients and Tumor Characteristics in All Cohorts
3.2. Pathology Results of the Surgical Specimen
3.3. Pathology Results of the Ultrasound-guided Biopsy
3.4. The False-Negative Cases
3.5. The rCR Group
3.6. The rCR and Tru-cut pCR Group
4. Discussion
4.1. Potential Reasons for Biopsy Failure
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
References
- Kaufmann, M.; von Minckwitz, G.; Mamounas, E.P.; Cameron, D.; Carey, L.A.; Cristofanilli, M.; Denkert, C.; Eiermann, W.; Gnant, M.; Harris, J.R.; et al. Recommendations from an International Consensus Conference on the Current Status and Future of Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy in Primary Breast Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012, 19, 1508-1516. [CrossRef]
- Killelea, B.K.; Yang, V.Q.; Mougalian, S.; Horowitz, N.R.; Pusztai, L.; Chagpar, A.B.; Lannin, D.R. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer increases the rate of breast conservation: results from the National Cancer Database. J AmColl Surg. 2015, 220, 1063-1069.
- Filho, O.M.; Stover, D.G.; Asad, S.; Ansell, P.J.; Watson, M.; Loibl, S.; Geyer, C.E. Jr.; Bae, J.; Collier, K.; Cherian, M.; et al. Association of Immunophenotype with Pathologic Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer A Secondary Analysis of the BrighTNess Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021, 7, 603-608. [CrossRef]
- van Ramshorst, M.S.; van der Voort, A.; van Werkhoven, E.D.; Mandjes, I.A.; Kemper, I.; Dezentjé, V.O.; Oving, I.M.; Honkoop, A.H.; Tick, L.W.; van de Wouw, A.J.; et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without anthracyclines in the presence of dual HER2 blockade for HER2-positive breast cancer (TRAIN-2): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018, 19, 1630-1640. [CrossRef]
- Wuerstlein, R.; Harbeck, N. Neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer. Rev Recent Clin Trials. 2017, 12, 81-92. [CrossRef]
- Rosen, E.L.; Blackwell, K.L.; Baker, J.A.; Soo, M.S.; Bently, R.C.; Yu, D.; Samulski, T.V.; Dewhirst, M.W. Accuracy of MRI in the detection of residual breast cancer after neoadjuvan chemotherapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003, 181, 1275-1282. [CrossRef]
- Balu-Maestro, C.; Chapellier, C.; Bleuse, A.; Chanalet, I.; Chauvel, C.; Largillier, R. Imaging in evaluation of response to neoadjuvant breast cancer treatment benefits of MRI. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2002, 72, 145-152. [CrossRef]
- Woodhams, R.; Kakita, S.; Hata, H.; Iwabuchi, K.; Kuranami, M.; Gautam, S.; Hatabu, H.; Kan, S.; Mountford, C. Identification of Residual Breast Carcinoma Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Diffusion -weighted Imaging Comparison with Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging and Pathologic Findings. Radiology. 2010, 254, 357-366. [CrossRef]
- Heil, J.; Kümmel, S.; Schaefgen, B.; Paepke, S.; Thomssen, C.; Rauch, G.; Ataseven, B.; Große, R.; Dreesmann, V.; Kühn, T.; et al. Diagnosis of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer by minimal invasive biopsy techniques. Br J Cancer. 2015, 113, 1565-1570. [CrossRef]
- Heil, J.; Schaefgen, B.; Sinn, P.; Richter, H.; Harcos, A.; Gomez, C.; Stieber, A.; Hennigs, A.; Rauch, G.; Schuetz, F.; et al. Can a pathological complete response of breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy be diagnosed by minimal invasive biopsy? Eur J Cancer. 2016, 69, 142-150. [CrossRef]
- Tasoulis, M.K.; Lee, H.B.; Yang, W.; Pope, R.; Krishnamurthy, S.; Kim, S.Y.; Cho, N.; Teoh, V.; Rauch, G.M.; Smith, B.D.; et al. Accuracy of Post–Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Image-Guided Breast Biopsy to Predict Residual Cancer. JAMA Surg. 2020, 155, :e204103. [CrossRef]
- Lee, H.B.; Han, W.; Kim, S.Y.; Cho, N.; Kim, K.E.; Park, J.H.; Ju, Y.W.; Lee, E.S.; Lim, S.J.; Kim, J.H.; et al. Prediction of pathologic complete response using image-guided biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients selected based on MRI findings: A prospective feasibility trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020, 182, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hammond, M.E.; Hayes, D.F.; Dowsett, M.; Allred, D.C.; Hagerty, K.L.; Badve, S.; Fitzgibbons, P.L.; Francis, G.; Goldstein, N.S.; Hayes, M.; et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer (unabridged version). Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010, 134, e48–e72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eisenhauer, E.A.; Therasse, P.; Bogaerts, J.; Schwartz, L.H.; Sargent, D.; Ford, R.; Dancey, J.; Arbuck, S.; Gwyther, S.; Mooney, M.; et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009, 45, 228–247. [CrossRef]
- van Hemert, A.K.E.; van Duijnhoven, F.H.; van Loevezijn, A.A.; Loo, C.E.; Wiersma, T.; Groen, E.J.; Peeters, M.T.F.D.V. Biopsy-Guided Pathological Response Assessment in Breast Cancer is Insufficient: Additional Pathology Findings of the MICRA Trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2023, 30, 4682–4689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Francis, A.; Herring, K.; Molyneux, R.; Jafri, M.; Trivedi, S.; Shaaban, A.; Rea, D.W. Abstract P5-16-14:NOSTRA PRELIM: a non-randomised pilot study designed to assess the ability of image-guided core biopsies to detect residual disease in patients with early breast cancer who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy to inform the design of a planned trial. Cancer Res. 2017, 77(4 Suppl), P5-16-14. [CrossRef]
- Basik, M.; Cecchini, R.S.; Santos, J.F.D.L.; Umphrey, H.R.; Julian, T.B.; Mamounas, E.P.; White, J.; Lucas, P.C.; Balanoff, C.; Tan, A.R.; et al. Abstract GS5-05: primary analysis of NRG-BR005, a phase II trial assessing accuracy of tumor bed biopsies in predicting pathologic complete response (pCR) in patients with clinical/radiological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) to explore the feasibility of breast conserving treatment without surgery. Cancer Res. 2020, 80(4 Suppl), GS5–05. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burbank, F. Stereotactic breast biopsy of atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ lesions: improved accuracy with directional, vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology. 1997, 202, 843–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Parker, S.H.; Klaus, A.J. Performing a breast biopsy with a directional, vacuum-assisted biopsy instrument. Radiographics. 1997, 17, 1233–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tasoulis, M.K.; Lee, H.B.; Yang, W.; Pope, R.; Krishnamurthy, S.; Kim, S.Y.; Cho, N.; Teoh, V.; Rauch, G.M.; Smith, B.D.; et al. Accuracy of Post-Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Image-Guided Breast Biopsy to Predict Residual Cancer. JAMA Surg. 2020, 155, e204103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marinovich, M.L.; Houssami, N.; Macaskill, P.; Sardanelli, F.; Irwig, L.; Mamounas, E.P.; von Minckwitz, G.; Brennan, M.E.; Ciatto, S. Meta-Analysis of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detecting Residual Breast Cancer After Neoadjuvant Therapy. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2013, 105, 321–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cheng, Q.; Huang, J.; Liang, J.; Ma, M.; Ye, K.; Shi, C.; Luo, L. The Diagnostic Performance of DCE-MRI in Evaluating the Pathological Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Front. Oncol. 2020, 10, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fukuda, T.; Horii, R.; Gomi, N.; Miyagi, Y.; Takahashi, S.; Ito, Y.; Akiyama, F.; Ohno, S.; Iwase, T. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for predicting pathological complete response of breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: association with breast cancer subtype. Springerplus. 2016, 5, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moskovic, E.C.; Mansi, J.L.; King, D.M.; Murch, C.R.; Smith, I.E. Mammography in the assessment of response to medical treatment of large primary breast cancer. Clin Radiol. 1993, 47, 339–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Adrada, B.E.; Huo, L.; Lane, D.L.; Arribas, E.M. Resetkova, E.; Yang, W.; Histopathologic correlation of residual mammographic microcalcifications after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015, 22, 1111-1117. [CrossRef]
- Heil, J.; Kümmel, S.; Schaefgen, B.; Paepke, S.; Thomssen, C.; Rauch, G.; Ataseven, B.; Grobe, R.; Dreesmann, V. ; Kühn T; et al. Diagnosis of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer by minimal invasive biopsy techniques. Br J Cancer. 2015, 113, 1565-1570. [CrossRef]
- Kuerer, H.M.; Rauch, G.M.; Krishnamurthy, S.; Adrada, B.E.; Caudle, A.S.; DeSnyder, S.M.; Black, D.M.; Santiago, L.; Hobbs, B.P.; Lucci, A. Jr.; et al. A Clinical Feasibility Trial for Identification of Exceptional Responders in Whom Breast Cancer Surgery Can Be Eliminated Following Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy. Ann Surg. 2018, 267, 946-951. [CrossRef]
- Heil,J. ; Pfob, A.; Sinn, H.P.; Rauch, G.; Bach, P.; Thomas, B.; Schaefgen, B.; Kuemmel, S.; Reimer, T.; Hahn, M.; et al. Diagnosing Pathologic Complete Response in the Breast After Neoadjuvant Systemic Treatment of Breast Cancer Patients by Minimal Invasive Biopsy. Annals of Surgery. 2022, 275, 576–581. [CrossRef]
- Kim, Y.S.; Chang, J.M.; Moon, H.G.; Lee, J.; Shin, S.U.; Moon, W.K. Residual Mammographic Microcalcifications and Enhancing Lesions on MRI After Neoadjuvant Systemic Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Breast Cancer: Correlation with Histopathologic Residual Tumor Size. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016, 23, 1135–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pfob, A.; Sidey-Gibbons, C. ; Rauch.G.; Thomas, B.; Schaefgen, B.; Kuemmel, S.; Reimer, T.; Hahn, M.; Thill, M.; Blohmer, J.U.; et al. Intelligent Vacuum-Assisted Biopsy to Identify Breast Cancer Patients With Pathologic Complete Response (ypT0 and ypN0) After Neoadjuvant Systemic Treatment for Omission of Breast and Axillary Surgery. J Clin Oncol. 2022, 40, 1903-1915. [CrossRef]
- Kuerer, H. Eliminating Surgery or Radiotherapy After Systemic Therapy in Treating Patients With HER2 Positive or Triple Negative Breast Cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov web site. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02945579 (accessed on 10.11.2024).
|
Overall n = 204 (100%) |
TNBC n = 38 (18.6%) |
HER2+ n = 46 (22.6%) |
HR+/HER2+ n = 30 (14.7%) |
HR+/HER2- n = 90 (44.1%) |
||
| Age, (median) | 45 (26- 86) | 45 (28- 74) | 46 (29- 71) | 44 (26- 64) | 45 (26- 86) | |
|
Clinical tumor stage |
T1 T2 T3 T4 |
11 (5.4) 149 (73.1) 26 (12.7) 18 (8.8) |
2 (5.3) 29 (76.3) 3 (7.9) 4 (10.5) |
5 (10.9) 34 (73.9) 6 (13.1) 1 (2.1) |
2 (6.7) 15 (50) 11 (36.6) 2 (6.7) |
2 (2.2) 71 (78.9) 6 (6.7) 11 (12.2) |
| Clinical nodal status |
N0 N+ |
3 (7.8) 201 (92.2) |
0 38 (100) |
1 (2.2) 45(97.8) |
0 30 (100) |
2 (2.2) 88 (97.8) |
|
NST |
4 (AC + T) 6 TAC Other |
117 (57.4) 13 (6.4) 74 (36.2) |
25 (65.8) 2 (5.3) 11 (28.9) |
22 (47.8) 1 (2.2) 23 (50) |
16 (53.3) 0 14 (46.7) |
54 (60) 10 (11.1) 26 (28.9) |
|
Initial tumor size on imaging, mm (median) |
32 (18- 80) | 30 (18- 45) | 27 (20- 46) | 41 (20- 65) | 32 (18- 80) | |
|
Tumor histology |
IDC ILC Mixt Other |
159 (77.9) 19 (9.3) 7 (3.4) 19 (9.4) |
30 (78.9) 1 (2.6) 1 (2.6) 6 (15.9) |
35 (76.1) 5 (10.8) 0 6 (13.1) |
26 (86.6) 2 (6.7) 0 2 (6.7) |
68 (75.6) 11 (12.2) 6 (6.7) 5 (5.6) |
|
Ki-67 |
<= 20 > 20-50 > 50 |
72 (35.3) 82 (40.2) 50 (24.5) |
2 (5.3) 13 (15.9) 23 (46) |
14 (30.4) 22 (26.8) 10(20) |
9 (30) 11 (13.4) 10 (20) |
47 (52.2) 36 (43.9) 7 (14) |
|
Grade |
1 2 3 |
27 (13.2) 113 (55.4) 64 (31.4) |
0 19 (50) 19 (50) |
4 (8.8) 21 (45.6) 21 (45.6) |
1 (3.3) 18 (60) 11 (36.7) |
22 (24.4) 55 (61.2) 13 (14.4) |
|
LVI |
None Present |
96 (51.5) 108 (48.5) |
18 (21.1) 20 (78.9) |
20 (43.5) 26 (56.5) |
14 (46.7) 16 (53.3) |
44 (48.9) 46 (51.1) |
| MF on surgical specimen |
Yes No |
29 (14.2) 175 (85.8) |
3 (7.9) 35 8 (92.1) |
2 (4.4) 44 (95.6) |
4 (13.39 26 (86.7) |
20 (22.2) 70 (77.8) |
|
rCR rPR |
99 (48.5) 105 (51.5) |
25 (65.8) 13 (34.2) |
34 (73.9) 12 (26.1) |
22 (73.3) 8 (26.7) |
18 (20) 72 (80) |
|
| TNBC = triple negative breast cancer, HER2 = human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, HR = hormone receptor, NST = neoadjuvant systemic therapy, AC = adriamycin-cyclophosphamide, T = taxotere, TAC = taxotere, adriamycin, and cyclophosphamide, IDC = invasive ductal carcinoma, ILC = invasive lobuler carcinoma, LVI = lymphovascular invasion, MF = multifocality, pCR = pathologic complete response, MRI = magnetic resonance imaging, mm = millimeter. | ||||||
|
Total n = 204 (%) |
TNBC n = 38 (%) |
HER2+ n = 46 (%) |
HR+/HER2+ n = 30 (%) |
HR+/HER2- n = 90 (%) |
|
|
In surgical specimen |
|||||
|
No residual disease (ypT0 = pCR) |
69 (33.8) | 18 (47.4) | 27 (58.7) | 17 (56.7) | 7 (7.8) |
|
Residual disease - Residual insitu disease (ypTis) - Residual invasive disease - ypT1mic - ypT1a - ypT1b - ypT1c - ypT2+ |
135 (66.2) - 6 (2.9) - 129 (63.3) - 15 (7.4) - 17 (8.3) - 17 (8.3) - 31 (15.2) - 49 (24.1) |
20 (52.6) - 0 - 20 (52.6) - 3 (7.9) - 4 (10.5) - 2 (5.3) - 2 (5.3) - 9 (23.6) |
19 (41.3) - 4 (8.7) - 15 (32.6) - 5 (10.8) - 3 (6.5) - 3 (6.5) - 2 (4.4) - 2 (4.4) |
13 (43.3) - 1 (3.3) - 12 (40) - 2 (6.7) - 1 (3.3) - 3 (10) - 2 (6.7) - 4 (13.3) |
83 (92.2) - 1 (1.1) - 82 (91.1) - 5 (5.6) - 9 (10) - 9 (10) - 25 (27.7) - 34 (37.8) |
|
In UGBx |
|||||
| No residual disease, pCR | 83 (40.7) | 19 (50) | 29 (63.1) | 18 (60) | 17 (18.9) |
|
Residual disease - Residual in situ disease - Residual invasive disease |
121 (59.3) - 11 (5.4) - 110 (53.9) |
19 (50) - 1 (2.6) - 18 (47.4) |
17 (36.9) - 5 (10.8) - 12 (26.1) |
12 (40) - 3 (10) - 9 (30) |
73 (81.1) - 2 (2.2) - 71 (78.9) |
| True negative cases, (n) | 68 | 18 | 26 | 17 | 7 |
| True positive cases, (n) | 120 | 19 | 16 | 12 | 73 |
| False negative cases, (n) | 15 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 10 |
| False positive cases, (n) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| FNR, % | 11.1 | 5 | 15.8 | 7.7 | 12.1 |
| Sensivity, % | 88.9 | 95 | 84.2 | 92.3 | 87.9 |
| PPV, % | 99.2 | 100 | 94.1 | 100 | 100 |
| NPV, % | 81.9 | 94.7 | 89.7 | 94.4 | 41.2 |
| Spesificty, % | 98.6 | 100 | 96.3 | 100 | 100 |
| Accuracy, % | 92.2 | 97.4 | 91.3 | 96.7 | 88.9 |
| UGBx = ultrasound-guided biopsy, TNBC = triple negative breast cancer,HER2 = human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, , HR = hormone receptor, FNR = false negative rate, PPV =positive predictive value, NPV = negative predictive value, pCR = pathologic complete response | |||||
| Patient | Subtype | Clinical stage and tumor size on MRI, mm | Grade | Histopathology in surgical specimen |
Ki-67 | Number of cores, (n) |
rCR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient 1 | TNBC | T2N1, 42* | 2 | 1,5 mm, IDC | 80 | 6 | present |
| Patient 2 | Her2+ | T2N1, 25* | 3 | 1 mm, IDC | 20 | 6 | present |
| Patient 3 | Her2+ | T2N1, 34* | 3 | 1 mm, IDC | 50 | 6 | present |
| Patient 4 | Her2+ | T3N1, 53* | 2 | 1 mm, IDC | 50 | 6 | present |
| Patient 5 | HR+/Her2+ | T2N1, 35* | 2 | 1 mm, IDC | 40 | 7 | present |
| Patient 6 | HR+/Her2- | T1N1, 18 | 1 | 5 mm, IDC | 3 | 6 | present |
| Patient 7 | HR+/Her2- | T2N1, 22 | 2 | 1 mm, IDC | 22 | 5 | present |
| Patient 9 | HR+/Her2- | T2N1, 25 | 2 | 10 mm, IDC | 25 | 5 | none |
| Patient 8 | HR+/Her2- | T2N1, 22 | 2 | 5 mm, ILC | 12 | 5 | none |
| Patient 10 | HR+/Her2- | T2N1, 25 | 2 | 10 mm, IDC | 25 | 4 | none |
| Patient 11 | HR+/Her2- | T2N1, 28* | 2 | 1 mm, IDC | 50 | 6 | present |
| Patient 12 | HR+/Her2- | T2N2, 22* | 2 | 1,2 mm, IDC | 50 | 4 | present |
| Patient 13 | HR+/Her2- | T2N2, 25* | 2 | 5 mm, ILC | 10 | 6 | present |
| Patient 14 | HR+/Her2- | T3N1, 55 | 2 | 10 mm, IDC | 25 | 4 | none |
| Patient 15 | HR+/Her2- | T3N1, 55 | 2 | 12 mm, IDC | 60 | 4 | none |
| Overall n = 99 |
TNBC n = 25 |
HER2+ n = 34 |
HR+/HER2+ n = 22 |
HR+/HER2- n = 18 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pCR | 68 (68.7) | 18 (72) | 26 (76.5) | 17 (77.3) | 7 (38.9) |
|
Residual in situ disease Residual invasive disease |
4 (4.1) 27 (27.2) |
0 7 (28) |
3 (8.8) 5 (14.7) |
1 (4.5) 4 (18.2) |
0 11 (61.1) |
| True negative | 68 (68.7) | 18 (72) | 26 (76.5) | 17 (77.3) | 7 (38.9) |
| True positive | 23 (23.2) | 6 (24) | 5 (14.7) | 4 (18.2) | 8 (44.4) |
| False negative | 8 (8.1) | 1 (4) | 3 (8.8) | 1 (4.5) | 3 (16.6) |
| False positive | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FNR, % | 25.8 | 14.3 | 37.5 | 20 | 27.2 |
| Sensitivity, % | 74.2 | 85.7 | 62.5 | 80 | 72.8 |
| PPV, % | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| NPV, % | 89.3 | 94.7 | 89.7 | 94.4 | 70 |
| Specificity, % | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Accuracy, % | 92.1 | 96 | 91.2 | 95.5 | 83.3 |
| rCR = radiologic complete response, pCR = pathologic complete response, FNR = false negative rate, PPV = positive predictive value, NPV = negative predictive value, TNBC = triple negative breast cancer, HER2 = human epidermal growth factor receptor2, HR = hormone receptor | |||||
| Primary analysis | Subgroup analysis | |||
|
Overall group, n = 204 |
Residual disease in Tru-cut Bx (n = 121) |
No residual disease in Tru-cut Bx (n = 83) |
Residual disease in Tru-cut Bx OR rPR (n = 128) |
No residual disease in Tru-cut Bx AND rCR (n = 76) |
|
No residual disease in surgical specimen (n = 69) |
1 (FP) | 68 (TN) | 1 (FP) | 68 (TN) |
|
Residual disease in surgical specimen (n = 135) |
120 (TP) | 15 (FN) | 127 (TP) | 8 (FN) |
| FNR, (%) | 11.1 | 5.9 | ||
| NPV, (%) | 81.9 | 89.5 | ||
| PPV, (%) | 99.2 | 99.2 | ||
| Specificity, (%) | 98.6 | 98.6 | ||
| Sensitivity, (%) | 88.9 | 94.1 | ||
| Accuracy, (%) | 92.2 | 95.6 | ||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).