Literature DB >> 16432360

Accuracy of physical examination, ultrasonography, and mammography in predicting residual pathologic tumor size in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Anees B Chagpar1, Lavinia P Middleton, Aysegul A Sahin, Peter Dempsey, Aman U Buzdar, Attiqa N Mirza, Fredrick C Ames, Gildy V Babiera, Barry W Feig, Kelly K Hunt, Henry M Kuerer, Funda Meric-Bernstam, Merrick I Ross, S Eva Singletary.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of physical examination, ultrasonography, and mammography in predicting residual size of breast tumors following neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an accepted part of the management of stage II and III breast cancer. Accurate prediction of residual pathologic tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is critical in guiding surgical therapy. Although physical examination, ultrasonography, and mammography have all been used to predict residual tumor size, there have been conflicting reports about the accuracy of these methods in the neoadjuvant setting.
METHODS: We reviewed the records of 189 patients who participated in 1 of 2 protocols using doxorubicin-containing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and who had assessment by physical examination, ultrasonography, and/or mammography no more than 60 days before their surgical resection. Size correlations were performed using Spearman rho analysis. Clinical and pathologic measurements were also compared categorically using the weighted kappa statistic.
RESULTS: Size estimates by physical examination, ultrasonography, and mammography were only moderately correlated with residual pathologic tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (correlation coefficients: 0.42, 0.42, and 0.41, respectively), with an accuracy of +/-1 cm in 66% of patients by physical examination, 75% by ultrasonography, and 70% by mammography. Kappa values (0.24-0.35) indicated poor agreement between clinical and pathologic measurements.
CONCLUSION: Physical examination, ultrasonography, and mammography were only moderately useful for predicting residual pathologic tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16432360      PMCID: PMC1448900          DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000197714.14318.6f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  26 in total

Review 1.  Is there still a role for neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer?

Authors:  Catherine Shannon; Ian Smith
Journal:  Crit Rev Oncol Hematol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 6.312

2.  Sonographic, magnetic resonance imaging, and mammographic assessments of preoperative size of breast cancer.

Authors:  W T Yang; W W Lam; H Cheung; M Suen; W W King; C Metreweli
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 2.153

3.  Assessment of breast cancer size: sonographic and pathologic correlation.

Authors:  F Tresserra; J Feu; P J Grases; B Navarro; X Alegret; A Férnandez-Cid
Journal:  J Clin Ultrasound       Date:  1999 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 0.910

4.  Surgical conservation planning after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage II and operable stage III breast carcinoma.

Authors:  H M Kuerer; S E Singletary; A U Buzdar; F C Ames; V Valero; T A Buchholz; M I Ross; L Pusztai; G N Hortobagyi; K K Hunt
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.565

5.  Prediction of breast cancer size by ultrasound, mammography and core biopsy.

Authors:  M Golshan; B B Fung; E Wiley; J Wolfman; A Rademaker; M Morrow
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.380

6.  Radiofrequency ablation of breast cancer.

Authors:  S Eva Singletary
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 0.688

7.  Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer.

Authors:  B Fisher; J Bryant; N Wolmark; E Mamounas; A Brown; E R Fisher; D L Wickerham; M Begovic; A DeCillis; A Robidoux; R G Margolese; A B Cruz; J L Hoehn; A W Lees; N V Dimitrov; H D Bear
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Influence of breast cancer histology on the relationship between ultrasound and pathology tumor size measurements.

Authors:  Bobbi Pritt; Takamaru Ashikaga; Robert G Oppenheimer; Donald L Weaver
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 7.842

9.  The use of ultrasound for monitoring breast tumour response to pro-adjuvant therapy.

Authors:  M L Gawne-Cain; E Smith; M Darby; R Given-Wilson
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 2.350

10.  Relative value of physical examination, mammography, and breast sonography in evaluating the size of the primary tumor and regional lymph node metastases in women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast carcinoma.

Authors:  J Herrada; R B Iyer; E N Atkinson; N Sneige; A U Buzdar; G N Hortobagyi
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 12.531

View more
  68 in total

1.  Comparison of mammography, sonography, MRI and clinical examination in patients with locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Authors:  H J Shin; H H Kim; J H Ahn; S-B Kim; K H Jung; G Gong; B H Son; S H Ahn
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2010-11-16       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer: assessing treatment progress and managing poor responders.

Authors:  Robert Wesolowski; Georg Thomas Budd
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 5.075

3.  Breast imaging in the young: the role of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer screening, diagnosis and follow-up.

Authors:  Dorria Saleh Salem; Rasha Mohamed Kamal; Sahar Mahmoud Mansour; Lamiaa Adel Salah; Rasha Wessam
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 2.895

4.  Accuracy of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Compared With Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Assessing the Tumor Response After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Sandy C Lee; Edward Grant; Pulin Sheth; Agustin A Garcia; Bhushan Desai; Lingyun Ji; Susan Groshen; Darryl Hwang; Mary Yamashita; Linda Hovanessian-Larsen
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 2.153

5.  Breast-Conserving Therapy in Patients with cT3 Breast Cancer with Good Response to Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy Results in Excellent Local Control: A Comprehensive Cancer Center Experience.

Authors:  Marieke E M van der Noordaa; Ileana Ioan; Emiel J Rutgers; Erik van Werkhoven; Claudette E Loo; Rosie Voorthuis; Jelle Wesseling; Japke van Urk; Terry Wiersma; Vincent Dezentje; Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters; Frederieke H van Duijnhoven
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  VPAC1 receptors for imaging breast cancer: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Mathew L Thakur; Kaijun Zhang; Adam Berger; Barbara Cavanaugh; Sung Kim; Chaitra Channappa; Andrea J Frangos; Eric Wickstrom; Charles M Intenzo
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2013-05-07       Impact factor: 10.057

7.  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

Review 8.  Trends and controversies in multidisciplinary care of the patient with breast cancer.

Authors:  Laura S Dominici; Monica Morrow; Elizabeth Mittendorf; Jennifer Bellon; Tari A King
Journal:  Curr Probl Surg       Date:  2016-11-29       Impact factor: 1.909

9.  Noninvasive monitoring of breast cancer during neoadjuvant chemotherapy using optical tomography with ultrasound localization.

Authors:  Quing Zhu; Susan Tannenbaum; Poornima Hegde; Mark Kane; Chen Xu; Scott H Kurtzman
Journal:  Neoplasia       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 5.715

10.  Assessment of residual tumour by FDG-PET: conventional imaging and clinical examination following primary chemotherapy of large and locally advanced breast cancer.

Authors:  J Dose-Schwarz; R Tiling; S Avril-Sassen; S Mahner; A Lebeau; C Weber; M Schwaiger; F Jänicke; M Untch; N Avril
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.