Literature DB >> 22476850

Can diffusion-weighted MR imaging and contrast-enhanced MR imaging precisely evaluate and predict pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer?

Lian-Ming Wu1, Jia-Ni Hu, Hai-Yan Gu, Jia Hua, Jie Chen, Jian-Rong Xu.   

Abstract

Clinical evidence regarding the value of MRI for therapy responses assessment in breast cancer is increasing. The objective of this study is to compare the diagnostic capability of diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DW-MRI) and contrast-enhanced MR imaging (CE-MRI) to evaluate and predict pathological response in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). We performed a meta-analysis of all available studies of the diagnostic performance of DW-MRI or CE-MRI to evaluate and predict pathological response to NAC in patients with breast cancer. We determined sensitivities and specificities across studies, calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and constructed summary receiver operating characteristic curves using hierarchical regression models. Methodological quality was assessed by QUADAS tool. Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria and involved 1,932 pathologically confirmed patients in total. Methodological quality was relatively high. DW-MRI sensitivity was 0.93 (95 % CI 0.82-0.97) and specificity was 0.82 (95 % CI 0.70-0.90). Overall LR+ was 5.09 (95 % CI 3.09-8.38), LR- was 0.09 (95 % CI 0.04-0.22), and DOR was 55.59 (95 % CI 21.80-141.80). CE-MRI sensitivity was 0.68 (95 % CI 0.57-0.77) and specificity was 0.91 (95 % CI 0.87-0.94). Overall LR+ was 7.48 (95 % CI 5.29-10.57), LR- was 0.36 (95 % CI 0.27-0.48), and DOR was 20.98 (95 % CI 13.24-33.24). Our study confirms that DW-MRI is a high sensitive and CE-MRI is a high specific modality in predicting pathological response to NAC in breast cancer patients. The combined use of DW-MRI and CE-MRI has the potential to improve the diagnostic performance in monitoring NAC. Further large prospective studies are warranted to assess the actual value of this combination in breast cancer preoperative treatment screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22476850     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-012-2033-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  41 in total

1.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for predicting pathological response after the first cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.

Authors:  Xia Li; Richard G Abramson; Lori R Arlinghaus; Hakmook Kang; Anuradha Bapsi Chakravarthy; Vandana G Abramson; Jaime Farley; Ingrid A Mayer; Mark C Kelley; Ingrid M Meszoely; Julie Means-Powell; Ana M Grau; Melinda Sanders; Thomas E Yankeelov
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 6.016

2.  Is there a systematic bias of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements of the breast if measured on different workstations? An inter- and intra-reader agreement study.

Authors:  Paola Clauser; Magda Marcon; Marta Maieron; Chiara Zuiani; Massimo Bazzocchi; Pascal A T Baltzer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-10-07       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  The Efficiency of Diffusion Weighted MRI and MR Spectroscopy On Breast MR Imaging.

Authors:  Canan Altay; Pınar Balcı
Journal:  J Breast Health       Date:  2014-10-01

4.  Aggregation Effects and Population-Based Dynamics as a Source of Therapy Resistance in Cancer.

Authors:  Joel S Brown; Jessica J Cunningham; Robert A Gatenby
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 4.538

5.  Multiparametric and Multimodality Functional Radiological Imaging for Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Early Treatment Response Assessment.

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

Review 6.  Pre-treatment differences and early response monitoring of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients using magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review.

Authors:  R Prevos; M L Smidt; V C G Tjan-Heijnen; M van Goethem; R G Beets-Tan; J E Wildberger; M B I Lobbes
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-09-16       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Combining multiparametric MRI with receptor information to optimize prediction of pathologic response to neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer: preliminary results.

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

Review 8.  Imaging Considerations and Interprofessional Opportunities in the Care of Breast Cancer Patients in the Neoadjuvant Setting.

Authors:  Anna G Sorace; Sara Harvey; Anum Syed; Thomas E Yankeelov
Journal:  Semin Oncol Nurs       Date:  2017-09-15       Impact factor: 2.315

9.  Cost-effectiveness of MR Imaging-guided Strategies for Detection of Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-Naive Men.

Authors:  Shivani Pahwa; Nicholas K Schiltz; Lee E Ponsky; Ziang Lu; Mark A Griswold; Vikas Gulani
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Towards personalized perioperative treatment for advanced gastric cancer.

Authors:  Ru-Lin Miao; Ai-Wen Wu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-09-07       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.