Literature DB >> 21947594

Accuracy of clinical examination, digital mammogram, ultrasound, and MRI in determining postneoadjuvant pathologic tumor response in operable breast cancer patients.

Randal Croshaw1, Hilary Shapiro-Wright, Erik Svensson, Kathleen Erb, Thomas Julian.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To determine the accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of clinical examination and breast imaging techniques in determining pathologic complete response in patients with locally advanced breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of data collected from patients treated with either neoadjuvant hormonal or chemotherapy between January 2005 and September 2010. Patients were evaluated by one of three surgical breast oncologists before neoadjuvant therapy and within 1 month before surgery by clinical breast examination (CBE), digital mammogram, breast ultrasound, and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The accuracy, NPV, and PPV of each modality was calculated on the basis of the final pathologic report. Available data from the literature was synthesized.
RESULTS: Sixty-two tumors in 61 patients with a mean age of 56 (range 34-87) years were evaluated. Overall accuracy ranged from 54% (CBE) to 80% (breast ultrasound). All modalities had a PPV greater than 75% for identifying the presence of residual disease. The PPV of each modality was generally higher in the younger patients. The NPV of all methods was less than 50%. The accuracy and NPV were compromised even further in younger patients. The combination of our own data with data available from the literature revealed MRI to be superior with regard to accuracy and PPV, but the NPV of MRIs remained poor at 65%.
CONCLUSIONS: All measured tests are good at predicting the presence of disease on final pathology, but none are able to reliably predict a pathologic complete response.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21947594     DOI: 10.1245/s10434-011-1919-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  43 in total

Review 1.  Nuclear imaging of the breast: translating achievements in instrumentation into clinical use.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska; Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Association of Low Nodal Positivity Rate Among Patients With ERBB2-Positive or Triple-Negative Breast Cancer and Breast Pathologic Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

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

3.  MRI does not predict pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.

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

4.  Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer: Functional Tumor Volume by MR Imaging Predicts Recurrence-free Survival-Results from the ACRIN 6657/CALGB 150007 I-SPY 1 TRIAL.

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

5.  Development and validation of a nomogram based on pretreatment dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for the prediction of pathologic response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for triple-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Yanbo Li; Yongzi Chen; Rui Zhao; Yu Ji; Junnan Li; Ying Zhang; Hong Lu
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-11-12       Impact factor: 7.034

6.  Prediction of Pathologic Complete Response in Breast Cancer Patients Comparing Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Ultrasound in Neoadjuvant Setting.

Authors:  Frederik Knude Palshof; Charlotte Lanng; Niels Kroman; Cemil Benian; Ilse Vejborg; Anne Bak; Maj-Lis Talman; Eva Balslev; Tove Filtenborg Tvedskov
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-05-27       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Is Clinical Exam of the Axilla Sufficient to Select Node-Positive Patients Who Downstage After NAC for SLNB? A Comparison of the Accuracy of Clinical Exam Versus MRI.

Authors:  Tracy-Ann Moo; Maxine S Jochelson; Emily C Zabor; Michelle Stempel; Monica Raiss; Anita Mamtani; Audree B Tadros; Mahmoud El-Tamer; Monica Morrow
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 5.344

8.  Preoperative breast MRI and surgical outcomes in elderly women with invasive ductal and lobular carcinoma: a population-based study.

Authors:  Alice K Fortune-Greeley; Stephanie B Wheeler; Anne-Marie Meyer; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; Andrea K Biddle; Hyman B Muss; William R Carpenter
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-12-04       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  Early ultrasound evaluation identifies excellent responders to neoadjuvant systemic therapy among patients with triple-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Beatriz E Adrada; Rosalind Candelaria; Stacy Moulder; Alastair Thompson; Peng Wei; Gary J Whitman; Vicente Valero; Jennifer K Litton; Lumarie Santiago; Marion E Scoggins; Tanya W Moseley; Jason B White; Elizabeth E Ravenberg; Wei T Yang; Gaiane M Rauch
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2021-04-20       Impact factor: 6.921

10.  Breast cancer: influence of tumour volume estimation method at MRI on prediction of pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Authors:  Shelley A Henderson; Nazleen Muhammad Gowdh; Colin A Purdie; Lee B Jordan; Andrew Evans; Tracy Brunton; Alastair M Thompson; Sarah Vinnicombe
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 3.039

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.