OBJECTIVE: To compare the use of diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) and (18)F-FDG PET/CT to predict pathological complete response (pCR) in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Thirty-four women with 34 invasive breast cancers underwent DWI and PET/CT before and after chemotherapy and before surgery. The percentage changes in the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and the standardised uptake value (SUV) were calculated, and the diagnostic performances for predicting pCR were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: After surgery, 7/34 patients (20.6%) were found to have pCR. A( z ) values for DWI, PET/CT and the combined use of DWI and PET/CT were 0.910, 0.873 and 0.944, respectively. The best cut-offs for differentiating pCR from non-pCR were a 54.9% increase in the ADC and a 63.9% decrease in the SUV. DWI showed 100% (7/7) sensitivity and 70.4% (19/27) specificity and PET/CT showed 100% sensitivity and 77.8% (21/27) specificity. When DWI and PET/CT were combined, there was a trend towards improved specificity compared with DWI. CONCLUSIONS: DWI and FDG PET/CT show similar diagnostic accuracy for predicting pCR to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. The combined use of DWI and FDG PET/CT has the potential to improve specificity in predicting pCR.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the use of diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) and (18)F-FDG PET/CT to predict pathological complete response (pCR) in breast cancerpatients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Thirty-four women with 34 invasive breast cancers underwent DWI and PET/CT before and after chemotherapy and before surgery. The percentage changes in the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and the standardised uptake value (SUV) were calculated, and the diagnostic performances for predicting pCR were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: After surgery, 7/34 patients (20.6%) were found to have pCR. A( z ) values for DWI, PET/CT and the combined use of DWI and PET/CT were 0.910, 0.873 and 0.944, respectively. The best cut-offs for differentiating pCR from non-pCR were a 54.9% increase in the ADC and a 63.9% decrease in the SUV. DWI showed 100% (7/7) sensitivity and 70.4% (19/27) specificity and PET/CT showed 100% sensitivity and 77.8% (21/27) specificity. When DWI and PET/CT were combined, there was a trend towards improved specificity compared with DWI. CONCLUSIONS: DWI and FDG PET/CT show similar diagnostic accuracy for predicting pCR to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancerpatients. The combined use of DWI and FDG PET/CT has the potential to improve specificity in predicting pCR.
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: Wendie A Berg; Kathleen S Madsen; Kathy Schilling; Marie Tartar; Etta D Pisano; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Deepa Narayanan; Al Ozonoff; Joel P Miller; Judith E Kalinyak Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-11-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Daniel A Hamstra; Thomas L Chenevert; Bradford A Moffat; Timothy D Johnson; Charles R Meyer; Suresh K Mukherji; Douglas J Quint; Stephen S Gebarski; Xiaoying Fan; Christina I Tsien; Theodore S Lawrence; Larry Junck; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Brian D Ross Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-11-02 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Edwin R Fisher; Jiping Wang; John Bryant; Bernard Fisher; Eletherios Mamounas; Norman Wolmark Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-08-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Alexis Vrachimis; Lars Stegger; Christian Wenning; Benjamin Noto; Matthias Christian Burg; Julia Renate Konnert; Thomas Allkemper; Walter Heindel; Burkhard Riemann; Michael Schäfers; Matthias Weckesser Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Michael A Jacobs; Antonio C Wolff; Katarzyna J Macura; Vered Stearns; Ronald Ouwerkerk; Riham El Khouli; David A Bluemke; Richard Wahl Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2015-05
Authors: Sara Sheikhbahaei; Tyler J Trahan; Jennifer Xiao; Mehdi Taghipour; Esther Mena; Roisin M Connolly; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-07-08
Authors: P Mürtz; M Tsesarskiy; A Kowal; F Träber; J Gieseke; W A Willinek; C C Leutner; A Schmiedel; H H Schild Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Hakmook Kang; Allison Hainline; Lori R Arlinghaus; Stephanie Elderidge; Xia Li; Vandana G Abramson; Anuradha Bapsi Chakravarthy; Richard G Abramson; Brian Bingham; Kareem Fakhoury; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2017-12-29
Authors: Richard G Abramson; Lori R Arlinghaus; Jared A Weis; Xia Li; Adrienne N Dula; Eduard Y Chekmenev; Seth A Smith; Michael I Miga; Vandana G Abramson; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) Date: 2012-10