Literature DB >> 23098575

A prospective study of bone tumor response assessment in metastatic breast cancer.

Naoki Hayashi1, Colleen M Costelloe, Tsuyoshi Hamaoka, Caimiao Wei, Naoki Niikura, Richard L Theriault, Gabriel N Hortobagyi, John E Madewell, Naoto T Ueno.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In our previous study, new MD Anderson (MDA) bone tumor response criteria (based on computed tomography [CT], plain radiography [XR], and skeletal scintigraphy [SS]) predicted progression-free survival (PFS) better than did World Health Organization (WHO) bone tumor response criteria (plain radiography [XR] and SS) among patients with breast cancer and bone-only metastases. In this pilot study, we tested whether MDA criteria could reveal bone metastasis response earlier than WHO criteria in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer with osseous and measurable nonosseous metastases.
METHODS: We prospectively analyzed bone metastasis response using each imaging modality and set of bone response criteria to distinguish progressive disease (PD) from non-PD and their association with PFS and overall survival (OS). We also compared the response of osseous metastases assessed by both criteria with the response of nonosseous measurable lesions.
RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 26.7 months (range, 6.1-53.3 months) in 29 patients. PFS rates differed at 6 months based on the classification of PD or non-PD using either set of criteria (MDA, P = .002; WHO, P = .014), but these rates, as well as OS, did not differ at 3 months. Response in osseous metastases by either set of criteria did not correlate with the response in nonosseous metastases.
CONCLUSION: MDA and WHO criteria predicted PFS of patients with osseous metastases at 6 months but not at an earlier time point. We plan a well-powered study to determine the role of MDA criteria in predicting bone tumor response by incorporating 18-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F) positron emission tomography (FDG-PET)/CT to see if findings using this modality are earlier than those with WHO criteria.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23098575      PMCID: PMC3863546          DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2012.09.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Breast Cancer        ISSN: 1526-8209            Impact factor:   3.225


  29 in total

1.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada.

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

2.  The detection of skeletal metastases from mammary cancer. A regional comparison between radiology and scintigraphy.

Authors:  C S Galasko; F H Doyle
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1972-07       Impact factor: 2.350

Review 3.  Radiological imaging for the diagnosis of bone metastases.

Authors:  L D Rybak; D I Rosenthal
Journal:  Q J Nucl Med       Date:  2001-03

Review 4.  Biology of osteoclast activation in cancer.

Authors:  G D Roodman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2001-08-01       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 5.  The role of positron emission tomography in the management of bone metastases.

Authors:  G J Cook; I Fogelman
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2000-06-15       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 6.  Management of bone metastases.

Authors:  R E Coleman
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2000

Review 7.  Bone imaging in metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  Tsuyoshi Hamaoka; John E Madewell; Donald A Podoloff; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Naoto T Ueno
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-07-15       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Assessment of progression of secondary bone lesions following cancer of the breast or prostate using serial radionuclide imaging.

Authors:  B R Condon; R Buchanan; N W Garvie; D M Ackery; J Fleming; D Taylor; D Hawkes; B A Goddard
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1981-01       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Metastatic breast carcinoma confined to bone: portrait of a clinical entity.

Authors:  Evangelos Briasoulis; Vasilis Karavasilis; Lida Kostadima; Michael Ignatiadis; George Fountzilas; Nicholas Pavlidis
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-10-01       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  A comparison of the sensitivity and accuracy of the 99TCm-phosphate bone scan and skeletal radiograph in the diagnosis of bone metastases.

Authors:  D L Citrin; R G Bessent; W R Greig
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1977-01       Impact factor: 2.350

View more
  11 in total

1.  Early osteosclerotic changes predict chemotherapy response in non-small-cell lung cancer patients with bone metastases.

Authors:  Dailin Rong; Yize Mao; Qiuxia Yang; Shuhang Xu; Qianqian Zhao; Rong Zhang
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-04-12       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Role of positron emission tomography for the monitoring of response to therapy in breast cancer.

Authors:  Olivier Humbert; Alexandre Cochet; Bruno Coudert; Alina Berriolo-Riedinger; Salim Kanoun; François Brunotte; Pierre Fumoleau
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2015-01-05

3.  Everolimus as treatment for breast cancer patients with bone metastases only: results of the phase II RADAR study.

Authors:  Nicolai Maass; Nadia Harbeck; Christoph Mundhenke; Christian Lerchenmüller; Jana Barinoff; Hans-Joachim Lück; Johannes Ettl; Bahriye Aktas; Sherko Kümmel; Siegfried Rösel; Steffen Wagner; Lothar Müller; Joachim Bischoff; Kristina Lübbe; Kathrin Schwedler; Marcus Schmidt; Dirk Bauerschlag; Valentina Nekljudova; Gunter von Minckwitz; Sibylle Loibl
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-09-27       Impact factor: 4.553

4.  RANKL: A promising circulating marker for bone metastasis response.

Authors:  Toni Ibrahim; Marianna Ricci; Emanuela Scarpi; Alberto Bongiovanni; Rossana Ricci; Nada Riva; Chiara Liverani; Alessandro De Vita; Federico La Manna; Devil Oboldi; Patrizia Serra; Flavia Foca; Lorenzo Cecconetto; Dino Amadori; Laura Mercatali
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2016-08-08       Impact factor: 2.967

Review 5.  Skeletal metastases from breast cancer: pathogenesis of bone tropism and treatment strategy.

Authors:  Caterina Fontanella; Valentina Fanotto; Karim Rihawi; Giuseppe Aprile; Fabio Puglisi
Journal:  Clin Exp Metastasis       Date:  2015-09-07       Impact factor: 5.150

Review 6.  Current approaches, challenges and future directions for monitoring treatment response in prostate cancer.

Authors:  T J Wallace; T Torre; M Grob; J Yu; I Avital; Bldm Brücher; A Stojadinovic; Y G Man
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2014-01-01       Impact factor: 4.207

7.  Skeletal Metastasis as Detected by 18F-FDG PET with Negative CT of the PET/CT: Frequency and Impact on Cancer Staging and/or Management.

Authors:  Fatma Ahmed; Razi Muzaffar; Hermina Fernandes; Yifan Tu; Batool Albalooshi; Medhat M Osman
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2016-10-10       Impact factor: 6.244

8.  Defining Clinical Response Criteria and Early Response Criteria for Precision Oncology: Current State-of-the-Art and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Vivek Subbiah; Hubert H Chuang; Dhiraj Gambhire; Kalevi Kairemo
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2017-02-15

Review 9.  FDG-PET/CT Versus Contrast-Enhanced CT for Response Evaluation in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Fredrik Helland; Martine Hallin Henriksen; Oke Gerke; Marianne Vogsen; Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen; Malene Grubbe Hildebrandt
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2019-08-27

10.  Effectiveness of 18F-FDG-PET/CT vs Bone Scintigraphy in Treatment Response Assessment of Bone Metastases in Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Kusai M Al-Muqbel; Rami J Yaghan
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 1.889

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.