PURPOSE: To compare magnetic resonance (MR) imaging findings and clinical assessment for prediction of pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in patients with stage II or III breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The HIPAA-compliant protocol and the informed consent process were approved by the American College of Radiology Institutional Review Board and local-site institutional review boards. Women with invasive breast cancer of 3 cm or greater undergoing NACT with an anthracycline-based regimen, with or without a taxane, were enrolled between May 2002 and March 2006. MR imaging was performed before NACT (first examination), after one cycle of anthracyline-based treatment (second examination), between the anthracycline-based regimen and taxane (third examination), and after all chemotherapy and prior to surgery (fourth examination). MR imaging assessment included measurements of tumor longest diameter and volume and peak signal enhancement ratio. Clinical size was also recorded at each time point. Change in clinical and MR imaging predictor variables were compared for the ability to predict pathologic complete response (pCR) and residual cancer burden (RCB). Univariate and multivariate random-effects logistic regression models were used to characterize the ability of tumor response measurements to predict pathologic outcome, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) used as a summary statistic. RESULTS: Data in 216 women (age range, 26-68 years) with two or more imaging time points were analyzed. For prediction of both pCR and RCB, MR imaging size measurements were superior to clinical examination at all time points, with tumor volume change showing the greatest relative benefit at the second MR imaging examination. AUC differences between MR imaging volume and clinical size predictors at the early, mid-, and posttreatment time points, respectively, were 0.14, 0.09, and 0.02 for prediction of pCR and 0.09, 0.07, and 0.05 for prediction of RCB. In multivariate analysis, the AUC for predicting pCR at the second imaging examination increased from 0.70 for volume alone to 0.73 when all four predictor variables were used. Additional predictive value was gained with adjustments for age and race. CONCLUSION: MR imaging findings are a stronger predictor of pathologic response to NACT than clinical assessment, with the greatest advantage observed with the use of volumetric measurement of tumor response early in treatment.
PURPOSE: To compare magnetic resonance (MR) imaging findings and clinical assessment for prediction of pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in patients with stage II or III breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The HIPAA-compliant protocol and the informed consent process were approved by the American College of Radiology Institutional Review Board and local-site institutional review boards. Women with invasive breast cancer of 3 cm or greater undergoing NACT with an anthracycline-based regimen, with or without a taxane, were enrolled between May 2002 and March 2006. MR imaging was performed before NACT (first examination), after one cycle of anthracyline-based treatment (second examination), between the anthracycline-based regimen and taxane (third examination), and after all chemotherapy and prior to surgery (fourth examination). MR imaging assessment included measurements of tumor longest diameter and volume and peak signal enhancement ratio. Clinical size was also recorded at each time point. Change in clinical and MR imaging predictor variables were compared for the ability to predict pathologic complete response (pCR) and residual cancer burden (RCB). Univariate and multivariate random-effects logistic regression models were used to characterize the ability of tumor response measurements to predict pathologic outcome, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) used as a summary statistic. RESULTS: Data in 216 women (age range, 26-68 years) with two or more imaging time points were analyzed. For prediction of both pCR and RCB, MR imaging size measurements were superior to clinical examination at all time points, with tumor volume change showing the greatest relative benefit at the second MR imaging examination. AUC differences between MR imaging volume and clinical size predictors at the early, mid-, and posttreatment time points, respectively, were 0.14, 0.09, and 0.02 for prediction of pCR and 0.09, 0.07, and 0.05 for prediction of RCB. In multivariate analysis, the AUC for predicting pCR at the second imaging examination increased from 0.70 for volume alone to 0.73 when all four predictor variables were used. Additional predictive value was gained with adjustments for age and race. CONCLUSION: MR imaging findings are a stronger predictor of pathologic response to NACT than clinical assessment, with the greatest advantage observed with the use of volumetric measurement of tumor response early in treatment.
Authors: Mitchell D Schnall; Jeffery Blume; David A Bluemke; Gia A Deangelis; Nanette Debruhl; Steven Harms; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Nola Hylton; Christiane K Kuhl; Etta D Pisano; Petrina Causer; Stuart J Schnitt; Stanley F Smazal; Carol B Stelling; Constance Lehman; Paul T Weatherall; Constantine A Gatsonis Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Lorena Gutierrez; Moriel S NessAiver; W Bradford Carter; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Rebecca S Lewis; Olga B Ioffe Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-10-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: B Fisher; J Bryant; N Wolmark; E Mamounas; A Brown; E R Fisher; D L Wickerham; M Begovic; A DeCillis; A Robidoux; R G Margolese; A B Cruz; J L Hoehn; A W Lees; N V Dimitrov; H D Bear Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: W Fraser Symmans; Florentia Peintinger; Christos Hatzis; Radhika Rajan; Henry Kuerer; Vicente Valero; Lina Assad; Anna Poniecka; Bryan Hennessy; Marjorie Green; Aman U Buzdar; S Eva Singletary; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Lajos Pusztai Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-09-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Catherine R Planey; E Brian Welch; Lei Xu; A Bapsi Chakravarthy; J Christopher Gatenby; Darla Freehardt; Ingrid Mayer; Ingrid Meszeoly; Mark Kelley; Julie Means-Powell; John C Gore; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Laura J Esserman; Donald A Berry; Maggie C U Cheang; Christina Yau; Charles M Perou; Lisa Carey; Angela DeMichele; Joe W Gray; Kathleen Conway-Dorsey; Marc E Lenburg; Meredith B Buxton; Sarah E Davis; Laura J van't Veer; Clifford Hudis; Koei Chin; Denise Wolf; Helen Krontiras; Leslie Montgomery; Debu Tripathy; Constance Lehman; Minetta C Liu; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Hope S Rugo; John T Carpenter; Chad Livasy; Lynn Dressler; David Chhieng; Baljit Singh; Carolyn Mies; Joseph Rabban; Yunni-Yi Chen; Dilip Giri; Alfred Au; Nola Hylton Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-12-25 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Laura J Esserman; Donald A Berry; Angela DeMichele; Lisa Carey; Sarah E Davis; Meredith Buxton; Cliff Hudis; Joe W Gray; Charles Perou; Christina Yau; Chad Livasy; Helen Krontiras; Leslie Montgomery; Debasish Tripathy; Constance Lehman; Minetta C Liu; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Hope S Rugo; John T Carpenter; Lynn Dressler; David Chhieng; Baljit Singh; Carolyn Mies; Joseph Rabban; Yunn-Yi Chen; Dilip Giri; Laura van 't Veer; Nola Hylton Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-05-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J M Cochran; S H Chung; A Leproux; W B Baker; D R Busch; A M DeMichele; J Tchou; B J Tromberg; A G Yodh Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: David C Newitt; Sheye O Aliu; Neil Witcomb; Gal Sela; John Kornak; Laura Esserman; Nola M Hylton Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Bruce J Tromberg; Zheng Zhang; Anaïs Leproux; Thomas D O'Sullivan; Albert E Cerussi; Philip M Carpenter; Rita S Mehta; Darren Roblyer; Wei Yang; Keith D Paulsen; Brian W Pogue; Shudong Jiang; Peter A Kaufman; Arjun G Yodh; So Hyun Chung; Mitchell Schnall; Bradley S Snyder; Nola Hylton; David A Boas; Stefan A Carp; Steven J Isakoff; David Mankoff Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2016-08-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: David C Newitt; Zheng Zhang; Jessica E Gibbs; Savannah C Partridge; Thomas L Chenevert; Mark A Rosen; Patrick J Bolan; Helga S Marques; Sheye Aliu; Wen Li; Lisa Cimino; Bonnie N Joe; Heidi Umphrey; Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Basak Dogan; Karen Oh; Hiroyuki Abe; Jennifer Drukteinis; Laura J Esserman; Nola M Hylton Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 4.813