OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the relative accuracies of mammography, sonography, MRI and clinical examination in predicting residual tumour size and pathological response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer. Each prediction method was compared with the gold standard of surgical pathology. METHODS:43 patients (age range, 25-62 years; mean age, 42.7 years) with locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer who had been treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy were enrolled prospectively. We compared the predicted residual tumour size and the predicted response on imaging and clinical examination with residual tumour size and response on pathology. Statistical analysis was performed using weighted kappa statistics and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: The ICC values between predicted tumour size and pathologically determined tumour size were 0.65 for clinical examination, 0.69 for mammography, 0.78 for sonography and 0.97 for MRI. Agreement between the response predictions at mid-treatment and the responses measured by pathology had kappa values of 0.28 for clinical examination, 0.32 for mammography, 0.46 for sonography and 0.68 for MRI. Agreement between the final response predictions and the responses measured by pathology had kappa values of 0.43 for clinical examination, 0.44 for mammography, 0.50 for sonography and 0.82 for MRI. CONCLUSION: Predictions of response and residual tumour size made on MRI were better correlated with the assessments of response and residual tumour size made upon pathology than were predictions made on the basis of clinical examination, mammography or sonography. Thus, the evaluation of predicted response using MRI could provide a relatively sensitive early assessment of chemotherapy efficacy.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the relative accuracies of mammography, sonography, MRI and clinical examination in predicting residual tumour size and pathological response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer. Each prediction method was compared with the gold standard of surgical pathology. METHODS: 43 patients (age range, 25-62 years; mean age, 42.7 years) with locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer who had been treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy were enrolled prospectively. We compared the predicted residual tumour size and the predicted response on imaging and clinical examination with residual tumour size and response on pathology. Statistical analysis was performed using weighted kappa statistics and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: The ICC values between predicted tumour size and pathologically determined tumour size were 0.65 for clinical examination, 0.69 for mammography, 0.78 for sonography and 0.97 for MRI. Agreement between the response predictions at mid-treatment and the responses measured by pathology had kappa values of 0.28 for clinical examination, 0.32 for mammography, 0.46 for sonography and 0.68 for MRI. Agreement between the final response predictions and the responses measured by pathology had kappa values of 0.43 for clinical examination, 0.44 for mammography, 0.50 for sonography and 0.82 for MRI. CONCLUSION: Predictions of response and residual tumour size made on MRI were better correlated with the assessments of response and residual tumour size made upon pathology than were predictions made on the basis of clinical examination, mammography or sonography. Thus, the evaluation of predicted response using MRI could provide a relatively sensitive early assessment of chemotherapy efficacy.
Authors: Lisa A Newman; Aman U Buzdar; S Eva Singletary; Henry M Kuerer; Thomas Buchholz; Frederick C Ames; Merrick I Ross; Kelly K Hunt Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Jessica E Gibbs; Ying Lu; Laura J Esserman; Dan Sudilovsky; Nola M Hylton Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: G Vlastos; N Q Mirza; J T Lenert; K K Hunt; F C Ames; B W Feig; M I Ross; A U Buzdar; S E Singletary Journal: Cancer Date: 2000-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
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: C E Simmons; S Hogeveen; R Leonard; Y Rajmohan; D Han; A Wong; J Lee; M Brackstone; J F Boileau; R Dinniwell; S Gandhi Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Alison U Barron; Tanya L Hoskin; Courtney N Day; E Shelley Hwang; Henry M Kuerer; Judy C Boughey Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Nola M Hylton; Constantine A Gatsonis; Mark A Rosen; Constance D Lehman; David C Newitt; Savannah C Partridge; Wanda K Bernreuter; Etta D Pisano; Elizabeth A Morris; Paul T Weatherall; Sandra M Polin; Gillian M Newstead; Helga S Marques; Laura J Esserman; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nazia F Jafri; David C Newitt; John Kornak; Laura J Esserman; Bonnie N Joe; Nola M Hylton Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Jeon-Hor Chen; Shadfar Bahri; Rita S Mehta; Philip M Carpenter; Christine E McLaren; Wen-Pin Chen; Peter T Fwu; David J B Hsiang; Karen T Lane; John A Butler; Min-Ying Su Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 3.454