PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of antiangiogenic therapy with bevacizumab on pathological response and the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast cancer patients. METHODS: Thirty-six patients (aged 31-69 years) with breast cancer were included. Sixteen patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) containing bevacizumab, and 20 patients received the same NAC protocol without bevacizumab. Serial MRI studies were performed to evaluate response. All patients received surgery after completing NAC. The extent of residual disease was examined by histopathology, and classified into three types (pCR-pathologic complete response, confined nodules, and scattered cells). Fisher's exact test and general logistic regression models were applied to analyze differences between two groups. RESULTS: pCR rates and residual disease (nodular and scattered cell) patterns were comparable between the two groups. The diagnostic accuracy rate of MRI (true positive and true negative) was 13/17 (76%) for patients with bevacizumab, and 14/20 (70%) for patients without bevacizumab. The size measured on MRI was accurate for mass lesions that shrank down to nodules, showing <0.7 cm discrepancy from pathological size. For residual disease presenting as scattered cells within a large fibrotic region, MRI could not predict them correctly, resulting in a high false-negative rate and a large size discrepancy. CONCLUSION: The pathological response and the diagnostic performance of MRI are comparable between patients receiving NAC with and without bevacizumab. In both groups MRI has a limitation in detecting residual disease broken down to small foci and scattered cells/clusters. When MRI is used to evaluate the extent of residual disease for surgical treatment, the limitations, particularly for nonmass lesions, should be considered.
PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of antiangiogenic therapy with bevacizumab on pathological response and the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast cancerpatients. METHODS: Thirty-six patients (aged 31-69 years) with breast cancer were included. Sixteen patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) containing bevacizumab, and 20 patients received the same NAC protocol without bevacizumab. Serial MRI studies were performed to evaluate response. All patients received surgery after completing NAC. The extent of residual disease was examined by histopathology, and classified into three types (pCR-pathologic complete response, confined nodules, and scattered cells). Fisher's exact test and general logistic regression models were applied to analyze differences between two groups. RESULTS: pCR rates and residual disease (nodular and scattered cell) patterns were comparable between the two groups. The diagnostic accuracy rate of MRI (true positive and true negative) was 13/17 (76%) for patients with bevacizumab, and 14/20 (70%) for patients without bevacizumab. The size measured on MRI was accurate for mass lesions that shrank down to nodules, showing <0.7 cm discrepancy from pathological size. For residual disease presenting as scattered cells within a large fibrotic region, MRI could not predict them correctly, resulting in a high false-negative rate and a large size discrepancy. CONCLUSION: The pathological response and the diagnostic performance of MRI are comparable between patients receiving NAC with and without bevacizumab. In both groups MRI has a limitation in detecting residual disease broken down to small foci and scattered cells/clusters. When MRI is used to evaluate the extent of residual disease for surgical treatment, the limitations, particularly for nonmass lesions, should be considered.
Authors: C Balu-Maestro; C Chapellier; A Bleuse; I Chanalet; C Chauvel; R Largillier Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Eugene S Kim; Anna Serur; Jianzhong Huang; Christina A Manley; Kimberly W McCrudden; Jason S Frischer; Samuel Z Soffer; Laurence Ring; Tamara New; Stephanie Zabski; John S Rudge; Jocelyn Holash; George D Yancopoulos; Jessica J Kandel; Darrell J Yamashiro Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2002-08-12 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Laura Martincich; Filippo Montemurro; Giovanni De Rosa; Vincenzo Marra; Riccardo Ponzone; Stefano Cirillo; Marco Gatti; Nicoletta Biglia; Ivana Sarotto; Piero Sismondi; Daniele Regge; Massimo Aglietta Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Joon Oh Park; Soon Il Lee; Seo Young Song; Kihyun Kim; Won Seog Kim; Chul Won Jung; Young Suk Park; Young-Hyuk Im; Won Ki Kang; Mark Hong Lee; Kyung Soo Lee; Keunchil Park Journal: Jpn J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: David H Johnson; Louis Fehrenbacher; William F Novotny; Roy S Herbst; John J Nemunaitis; David M Jablons; Corey J Langer; Russell F DeVore; Jacques Gaudreault; Lisa A Damico; Eric Holmgren; Fairooz Kabbinavar Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Aida Kuzucan; Jeon-Hor Chen; Shadfar Bahri; Rita S Mehta; Philip M Carpenter; Peter T Fwu; Hon J Yu; David J B Hsiang; Karen T Lane; John A Butler; Stephen A Feig; Min-Ying Su Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Albert E Cerussi; Vaya W Tanamai; Rita S Mehta; David Hsiang; John Butler; Bruce J Tromberg Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2010-06-12 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Stephen F Sener; Rachel E Sargent; Connie Lee; Tejas Manchandia; Vivian Le-Tran; Yuliya Olimpiadi; Nicole Zaremba; Andrew Alabd; Maria Nelson; Julie E Lang Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2019-08-09 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Jeon-Hor Chen; Shadfar Bahri; Rita S Mehta; Aida Kuzucan; Hon J Yu; Philip M Carpenter; Stephen A Feig; Muqing Lin; David J B Hsiang; Karen T Lane; John A Butler; Orhan Nalcioglu; Min-Ying Su Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-08-30 Impact factor: 11.105