OBJECTIVES: We address the diagnostic performance of breast MRI and the efficacy of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (NRC) treatment (NRC protocol) vs conventional neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. METHODS: The NRC protocol consists of six anthracycline/taxane cycles and concomitant low-dose radiotherapy on breast tumour volume. Breast MRI was performed at baseline and after the last therapy cycle in 18 and 36 patients undergoing the NRC protocol or conventional NAC (propensity matching). RESULTS: In both groups, we observed reduced tumour dimensions after the last cycle (p<0.001), and the response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) class directly correlated with the tumour regression grade class after the last cycle (p<0.001). Patients in the NRC group displayed a higher frequency of complete/partial response than those in the NAC group (p=0.034). 17 out of 18 patients in the NRC group met the criteria for avoiding mastectomy based on final MRI evaluation. The RECIST classification displayed a superior diagnostic performance in the prediction of the response to treatment [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)=0.72] than time-to-intensity curves and apparent diffusion coefficient (AUC 0.63 and 0.61). The association of the three above criteria yielded a better diagnostic performance, both in the general population (AUC=0.79) and in the NRC and the NAC group separately (AUC=0.82 and AUC=0.76). CONCLUSIONS: The pathological response is predicted by MRI performed after the last cycle, if both conventional MRI and diffusion imaging are integrated. The NRC treatment yields oncological results superior to NAC. Advances in knowledge MRI could be used to establish the neoadjuvant protocol in breast cancer patients.
OBJECTIVES: We address the diagnostic performance of breast MRI and the efficacy of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (NRC) treatment (NRC protocol) vs conventional neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. METHODS: The NRC protocol consists of six anthracycline/taxane cycles and concomitant low-dose radiotherapy on breast tumour volume. Breast MRI was performed at baseline and after the last therapy cycle in 18 and 36 patients undergoing the NRC protocol or conventional NAC (propensity matching). RESULTS: In both groups, we observed reduced tumour dimensions after the last cycle (p<0.001), and the response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) class directly correlated with the tumour regression grade class after the last cycle (p<0.001). Patients in the NRC group displayed a higher frequency of complete/partial response than those in the NAC group (p=0.034). 17 out of 18 patients in the NRC group met the criteria for avoiding mastectomy based on final MRI evaluation. The RECIST classification displayed a superior diagnostic performance in the prediction of the response to treatment [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)=0.72] than time-to-intensity curves and apparent diffusion coefficient (AUC 0.63 and 0.61). The association of the three above criteria yielded a better diagnostic performance, both in the general population (AUC=0.79) and in the NRC and the NAC group separately (AUC=0.82 and AUC=0.76). CONCLUSIONS: The pathological response is predicted by MRI performed after the last cycle, if both conventional MRI and diffusion imaging are integrated. The NRC treatment yields oncological results superior to NAC. Advances in knowledge MRI could be used to establish the neoadjuvant protocol in breast cancerpatients.
Authors: Thomas E Yankeelov; Martin Lepage; Anuradha Chakravarthy; Elizabeth E Broome; Kenneth J Niermann; Mark C Kelley; Ingrid Meszoely; Ingrid A Mayer; Cheryl R Herman; Kevin McManus; Ronald R Price; John C Gore Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2006-11-21 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Claudette E Loo; H Jelle Teertstra; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Marc J van de Vijver; Juliane Hannemann; Saar H Muller; Marie-Jeanne Vrancken Peeters; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: J E Dowell; R Sinard; D A Yardley; V Aviles; M Machtay; R S Weber; G S Weinstein; A A Chalian; D P Carbone; D I Rosenthal Journal: Semin Radiat Oncol Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 5.934
Authors: David L Morse; Jean-Philippe Galons; Claire M Payne; Dominique L Jennings; Sam Day; Guowei Xia; Robert J Gillies Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: A Bapsi Chakravarthy; Mark C Kelley; Bernadette McLaren; Cristina I Truica; Dean Billheimer; Ingrid A Mayer; Ana M Grau; David H Johnson; Jean F Simpson; R Daniel Beauchamp; Catherine Jones; Jennifer A Pietenpol Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-03-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Jeon Hor Chen; Byron Feig; Byon Feig; Garima Agrawal; Hon Yu; Philip M Carpenter; Rita S Mehta; Orhan Nalcioglu; Min Ying Su Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-01-01 Impact factor: 6.860