PURPOSE: Ultrasound elastography is a new imaging technique that can be used to assess tissue stiffness. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential of ultrasound elastography for monitoring treatment response of locally advanced breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy. METHODS: Fifteen women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy had the affected breast scanned before, 1, 4, and 8 weeks following therapy initiation, and then before surgery. Changes in elastographic parameters related to tissue biomechanical properties were then determined and compared to clinical and pathologic tumor response after mastectomy. RESULTS: Patients who responded to therapy demonstrated a significant decrease (P < .05) in strain ratios and strain differences 4 weeks after treatment initiation compared to non-responding patients. Mean strain ratio and mean strain difference for responders was 81 ± 3% and 1 ± 17% for static regions of interest (ROIs) and 81 ± 3% and 6 ± 18% for dynamic ROIs, respectively. In contrast, these parameters were 102±2%, 110±17%, 101±4%, and 109±30% for non-responding patients, respectively. Strain ratio using static ROIs was found to be the best predictor of treatment response, with 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity obtained 4 weeks after starting treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that ultrasound elastography can be potentially used as an early predictor of tumor therapy response in breast cancer patients.
PURPOSE: Ultrasound elastography is a new imaging technique that can be used to assess tissue stiffness. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential of ultrasound elastography for monitoring treatment response of locally advanced breast cancerpatients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy. METHODS: Fifteen women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy had the affected breast scanned before, 1, 4, and 8 weeks following therapy initiation, and then before surgery. Changes in elastographic parameters related to tissue biomechanical properties were then determined and compared to clinical and pathologic tumor response after mastectomy. RESULTS:Patients who responded to therapy demonstrated a significant decrease (P < .05) in strain ratios and strain differences 4 weeks after treatment initiation compared to non-responding patients. Mean strain ratio and mean strain difference for responders was 81 ± 3% and 1 ± 17% for static regions of interest (ROIs) and 81 ± 3% and 6 ± 18% for dynamic ROIs, respectively. In contrast, these parameters were 102±2%, 110±17%, 101±4%, and 109±30% for non-responding patients, respectively. Strain ratio using static ROIs was found to be the best predictor of treatment response, with 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity obtained 4 weeks after starting treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that ultrasound elastography can be potentially used as an early predictor of tumor therapy response in breast cancerpatients.
Authors: Eugene Huang; Marsha D McNeese; Eric A Strom; George H Perkins; Angela Katz; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Vicente Valero; Henry M Kuerer; S Eva Singletary; Kelly K Hunt; Aman U Buzdar; Thomas A Buchholz Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Darren Roblyer; Shigeto Ueda; Albert Cerussi; Wendy Tanamai; Amanda Durkin; Rita Mehta; David Hsiang; John A Butler; Christine McLaren; Wen-Pin Chen; Bruce Tromberg Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-08-18 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Ian C Smith; Steven D Heys; Andrew W Hutcheon; Iain D Miller; Simon Payne; Fiona J Gilbert; Antoinne K Ah-See; Oleg Eremin; Leslie G Walker; Tarun K Sarkar; S Peter Eggleton; Keith N Ogston Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nishikant P Deshmukh; Jesus J Caban; Russell H Taylor; Gregory D Hager; Emad M Boctor Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2015-08-15 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Amir Y Sajjadi; Steven J Isakoff; Bin Deng; Bhawana Singh; Christy M Wanyo; Qianqian Fang; Michelle C Specht; Lidia Schapira; Beverly Moy; Aditya Bardia; David A Boas; Stefan A Carp Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Huan-Hsin Tseng; Yi Luo; Sunan Cui; Jen-Tzung Chien; Randall K Ten Haken; Issam El Naqa Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Khadijeh Saednia; Andrew Lagree; Marie A Alera; Lauren Fleshner; Audrey Shiner; Ethan Law; Brianna Law; David W Dodington; Fang-I Lu; William T Tran; Ali Sadeghi-Naini Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-06-11 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Paul E Oberstein; Niloufar Saharkhiz; Thomas Payen; Carmine F Palermo; Stephen A Sastra; Yang Han; Alireza Nabavizadeh; Irina R Sagalovskiy; Barbara Orelli; Vilma Rosario; Deborah Desrouilleres; Helen Remotti; Michael D Kluger; Beth A Schrope; John A Chabot; Alina C Iuga; Elisa E Konofagou; Kenneth P Olive Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-12-12 Impact factor: 12.531