BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy reduces tumor size before surgery in women with breast cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the ability of mammography and ultrasound to predict residual tumor size following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: In a retrospective review of consecutive breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, residual tumor size estimated by diagnostic imaging was compared with residual tumor size determined by surgical pathology. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-two patients with 196 primary breast cancers were studied. Of 104 tumors evaluated by both imaging modalities, ultrasound was able to size 91.3%, and mammography was able to size only 51.9% (chi(2)P < .001). Ultrasound also was more accurate than mammography in estimating residual tumor size (62 of 104 [59.6%] vs 33 of 104 [31.7%], P < .001). There was little difference in the ability of mammography and ultrasound to predict pathologic complete response (receiver operating characteristic, 0.741 vs 0.784). CONCLUSIONS: Breast ultrasound was more accurate than mammography in predicting residual tumor size following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The likelihood of a complete pathologic response was 80% when both imaging modalities demonstrated no residual disease. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy reduces tumor size before surgery in women with breast cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the ability of mammography and ultrasound to predict residual tumor size following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: In a retrospective review of consecutive breast cancerpatients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, residual tumor size estimated by diagnostic imaging was compared with residual tumor size determined by surgical pathology. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-two patients with 196 primary breast cancers were studied. Of 104 tumors evaluated by both imaging modalities, ultrasound was able to size 91.3%, and mammography was able to size only 51.9% (chi(2)P < .001). Ultrasound also was more accurate than mammography in estimating residual tumor size (62 of 104 [59.6%] vs 33 of 104 [31.7%], P < .001). There was little difference in the ability of mammography and ultrasound to predict pathologic complete response (receiver operating characteristic, 0.741 vs 0.784). CONCLUSIONS: Breast ultrasound was more accurate than mammography in predicting residual tumor size following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The likelihood of a complete pathologic response was 80% when both imaging modalities demonstrated no residual disease. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: G von Minckwitz; S D Costa; W Eiermann; J U Blohmer; A H Tulusan; C Jackisch; M Kaufmann Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lisa A Carey; Richard Metzger; E Claire Dees; Frances Collichio; Carolyn I Sartor; David W Ollila; Nancy Klauber-DeMore; Jan Halle; Lynda Sawyer; Dominic T Moore; Mark L Graham Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-08-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Rosalind P Candelaria; Roland L Bassett; William Fraser Symmans; Maheshwari Ramineni; Stacy L Moulder; Henry M Kuerer; Alastair M Thompson; Wei Tse Yang Journal: Oncologist Date: 2017-03-17
Authors: Subramani Mani; Yukun Chen; Lori R Arlinghaus; Xia Li; A Bapsi Chakravarthy; Sandeep R Bhave; E Brian Welch; Mia A Levy; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2011-10-22
Authors: Rosalind P Candelaria; Beatriz E Adrada; Deanna L Lane; Gaiane M Rauch; Stacy L Moulder; Alastair M Thompson; Roland L Bassett; Elsa M Arribas; Huong T Le-Petross; Jessica W T Leung; David A Spak; Elizabeth E Ravenberg; Jason B White; Vicente Valero; Wei T Yang Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2022-03-14 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Quing Zhu; Foluso O Ademuyiwa; Catherine Young; Catherine Appleton; Matthew F Covington; Cynthia Ma; Souzan Sanati; Ian S Hagemann; Atahar Mostafa; K M Shihab Uddin; Isabella Grigsby; Ashley E Frith; Leonel F Hernandez-Aya; Steven S Poplack Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 4.872