OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance in evaluating the response of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), between the response evaluation criteria in solid tumor (RECIST) 1.0 and RECIST 1.1, on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for advance breast cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Breast cancer patients, who underwent NAC between 2005 and 2010, were included. Both prechemotherapy and post-chemotherapy MRIs were performed within 1-4 weeks before and after NAC. Only the patients with subsequent surgery were included. The response to NAC was assessed by using RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1. Patients with a complete or partial response on MRI were considered as responders, and those with stable or progressive disease were considered as non-responders. Tumor necrosis > 50% on pathology was defined as responders and necrosis < 50% was defined as non-responders. The diagnostic accuracy of both RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1 was analyzed and compared by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: Seventy-nine females (mean age 51.0 ± 9.3 years) were included. Pathology showed 45 responders and 34 non-responders. There were 49 responders and 30 non-responders on RECIST 1.0, and in 55 patients, RECIST 1.0 results agreed with pathologic results (69.6%). RECIST 1.1 showed 52 responders and 27 non-responders. In 60 patients, RECIST 1.1 results were in accordance with pathology results (75.9%). The area under the ROC curve was 0.809 for RECIST 1.0 and 0.853 for RECIST 1.1. CONCLUSION: RECIST 1.1 showed better diagnostic performance than RECIST 1.0, although there was no statistically significant difference between the two.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance in evaluating the response of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), between the response evaluation criteria in solid tumor (RECIST) 1.0 and RECIST 1.1, on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for advance breast cancerpatients. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Breast cancerpatients, who underwent NAC between 2005 and 2010, were included. Both prechemotherapy and post-chemotherapy MRIs were performed within 1-4 weeks before and after NAC. Only the patients with subsequent surgery were included. The response to NAC was assessed by using RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1. Patients with a complete or partial response on MRI were considered as responders, and those with stable or progressive disease were considered as non-responders. Tumor necrosis > 50% on pathology was defined as responders and necrosis < 50% was defined as non-responders. The diagnostic accuracy of both RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1 was analyzed and compared by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: Seventy-nine females (mean age 51.0 ± 9.3 years) were included. Pathology showed 45 responders and 34 non-responders. There were 49 responders and 30 non-responders on RECIST 1.0, and in 55 patients, RECIST 1.0 results agreed with pathologic results (69.6%). RECIST 1.1 showed 52 responders and 27 non-responders. In 60 patients, RECIST 1.1 results were in accordance with pathology results (75.9%). The area under the ROC curve was 0.809 for RECIST 1.0 and 0.853 for RECIST 1.1. CONCLUSION: RECIST 1.1 showed better diagnostic performance than RECIST 1.0, although there was no statistically significant difference between the two.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast neoplasm; Chemotherapy; Magnetic resonance imaging; Response evaluation criteria in solid tumor
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
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: Claudette E Loo; Marieke E Straver; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Sara H Muller; Jelle Wesseling; Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-01-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jan Bogaerts; Robert Ford; Dan Sargent; Lawrence H Schwartz; Larry Rubinstein; Denis Lacombe; Elizabeth Eisenhauer; Jaap Verweij; Patrick Therasse Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2008-12-16 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: L H Schwartz; J Bogaerts; R Ford; L Shankar; P Therasse; S Gwyther; E A Eisenhauer Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2008-12-16 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Laura Martincich; Filippo Montemurro; Giovanni De Rosa; Vincenzo Marra; Riccardo Ponzone; Stefano Cirillo; Marco Gatti; Nicoletta Biglia; Ivana Sarotto; Piero Sismondi; Daniele Regge; Massimo Aglietta Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Young Jun Choi; Mi Sun Chung; Hyun Jung Koo; Ji Eun Park; Hee Mang Yoon; Seong Ho Park Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Ji Eun Park; Kyunghwa Han; Yu Sub Sung; Mi Sun Chung; Hyun Jung Koo; Hee Mang Yoon; Young Jun Choi; Seung Soo Lee; Kyung Won Kim; Youngbin Shin; Suah An; Hyo-Min Cho; Seong Ho Park Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 3.500