Literature DB >> 16155794

Clinical and radiologic assessments to predict breast cancer pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Anne F Schott1, Marilyn A Roubidoux, Mark A Helvie, Daniel F Hayes, Celina G Kleer, Lisa A Newman, Lori J Pierce, Kent A Griffith, Susan Murray, Karen A Hunt, Chintana Paramagul, Laurence H Baker.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare the ability of clinical examination, mammography, vascularity-sensitive ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to determine pathologic complete response (CR) in breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants were women with primary measurable, operable invasive breast cancer (Stages I-III) who presented to the University of Michigan Breast Care Center. Eligibility criteria were based on clinical need for chemotherapy as part of the overall treatment plan. The chemotherapy consisted of doxorubicin and docetaxel administered every 3 weeks for four cycles. Tumor size measurements by physical examination and by the three imaging modalities were performed before chemotherapy was initiated and after its completion, prior to definitive surgery. Response criteria were pre-specified in this prospective design, and study radiologists analyzed the mammographic, sonographic and MRI image sets blinded to information from the other modalities and blinded to final histological diagnosis. The pathologic CR rate obtained by the clinical and imaging modalities was compared to pathologic CR as determined pathologically.
RESULTS: 41 of 43 enrolled patients had a determination of pathologic response, and 4 patients had a pathologic CR to this chemotherapy (9.8%). The accuracy of physical examination, mammography, ultrasound, and MRI in determining pathologic CR was 75, 89, 82, and 89% respectively (NS).
CONCLUSION: Biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy remains absolutely necessary to determine pathologic CR to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, as the accuracy of current imaging modalities is insufficient to make this determination. The accuracy of mammography, vascularity-sensitive ultrasound, and MRI were not observed to be significantly different.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16155794     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-005-2510-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  29 in total

1.  Ability of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography to determine clinical responses of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Authors:  Ai Amioka; Norio Masumoto; Noriko Gouda; Keiko Kajitani; Hideo Shigematsu; Akiko Emi; Takayuki Kadoya; Morihito Okada
Journal:  Jpn J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-02-03       Impact factor: 3.019

2.  Magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of pathologic response in patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic treatment for operable breast cancer. Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium trial 017.

Authors:  Jennifer F De Los Santos; Alan Cantor; Keith D Amos; Andres Forero; Mehra Golshan; Janet K Horton; Clifford A Hudis; Nola M Hylton; Kandace McGuire; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Ingrid M Meszoely; Rita Nanda; E Shelley Hwang
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2013-02-21       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Pathological response grade of colorectal liver metastases treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Authors:  Gabriel Chan; Mazen Hassanain; Prosanto Chaudhury; Dionisios Vrochides; Amy Neville; Matthew Cesari; Petr Kavan; Victoria Marcus; Peter Metrakos
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 3.647

4.  The use of molecular breast imaging to assess response in women undergoing neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer: a pilot study.

Authors:  Dietlind L Wahner-Roedler; Judy C Boughey; Carrie B Hruska; Beiyun Chen; Deborah J Rhodes; Cindy L Tortorelli; Robert W Maxwell; Stephen S Cha; Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  Clin Nucl Med       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 7.794

5.  Treatment response assessment of breast masses on dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance scans using fuzzy c-means clustering and level set segmentation.

Authors:  Jiazheng Shi; Berkman Sahiner; Heang-Ping Chan; Chintana Paramagul; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Mark Helvie; Thomas Chenevert
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Evaluation of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Response with Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Locally Advanced Invasive Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Naciye Sinem Gezer; Özge Orbay; Pınar Balcı; Merih Guray Durak; Binnaz Demirkan; Serdar Saydam
Journal:  J Breast Health       Date:  2014-04-01

7.  Statistical comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI pharmacokinetic models in human breast cancer.

Authors:  Xia Li; E Brian Welch; A Bapsi Chakravarthy; Lei Xu; Lori R Arlinghaus; Jaime Farley; Ingrid A Mayer; Mark C Kelley; Ingrid M Meszoely; Julie Means-Powell; Vandana G Abramson; Ana M Grau; John C Gore; Thomas E Yankeelov
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 8.  In vivo 1H MRS in the assessment of the therapeutic response of breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Uma Sharma; Hyeon Man Baek; Min Ying Su; Naranamangalam R Jagannathan
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 4.044

9.  Voxel-by-voxel functional diffusion mapping for early evaluation of breast cancer treatment.

Authors:  Bing Ma; Charles R Meyer; Martin D Pickles; Thomas L Chenevert; Peyton H Bland; Craig J Galbán; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Lindsay W Turnbull; Brian D Ross
Journal:  Inf Process Med Imaging       Date:  2009

10.  The actual scenario of neoadjuvant chemotherapy of breast cancer in developing country: a report of 80 cases of breast cancer from a tertiary cancer center in India.

Authors:  Umesh Das; K C Lakshmaiah; K Govind Babu; T M Suresh; D Lokanatha; Linu Jacob; Suresh Babu
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-06-04       Impact factor: 4.553

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.