PURPOSE: The purpose of this pilot study is to determine (1) if early changes in both semiquantitative and quantitative DCE-MRI parameters, observed after the first cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients, show significant difference between responders and nonresponders and (2) if these parameters can be used as a prognostic indicator of the eventual response. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients were examined using DCE-MRI pre-, post-one cycle, and just prior to surgery. The semiquantitative parameters included longest dimension, tumor volume, initial area under the curve, and signal enhancement ratio related parameters, while quantitative parameters included K(trans), v(e), k(ep), v(p), and τ(i) estimated using the standard Tofts-Kety, extended Tofts-Kety, and fast exchange regime models. RESULTS: Our preliminary results indicated that the signal enhancement ratio washout volume and k(ep) were significantly different between pathologic complete responders from nonresponders (P < 0.05) after a single cycle of chemotherapy. Receiver operator characteristic analysis showed that the AUC of the signal enhancement ratio washout volume was 0.75, and the AUCs of k(ep) estimated by three models were 0.78, 0.76, and 0.73, respectively. CONCLUSION: In summary, the signal enhancement ratio washout volume and k(ep) appear to predict breast cancer response after one cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This observation should be confirmed with additional prospective studies.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this pilot study is to determine (1) if early changes in both semiquantitative and quantitative DCE-MRI parameters, observed after the first cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancerpatients, show significant difference between responders and nonresponders and (2) if these parameters can be used as a prognostic indicator of the eventual response. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients were examined using DCE-MRI pre-, post-one cycle, and just prior to surgery. The semiquantitative parameters included longest dimension, tumor volume, initial area under the curve, and signal enhancement ratio related parameters, while quantitative parameters included K(trans), v(e), k(ep), v(p), and τ(i) estimated using the standard Tofts-Kety, extended Tofts-Kety, and fast exchange regime models. RESULTS: Our preliminary results indicated that the signal enhancement ratio washout volume and k(ep) were significantly different between pathologic complete responders from nonresponders (P < 0.05) after a single cycle of chemotherapy. Receiver operator characteristic analysis showed that the AUC of the signal enhancement ratio washout volume was 0.75, and the AUCs of k(ep) estimated by three models were 0.78, 0.76, and 0.73, respectively. CONCLUSION: In summary, the signal enhancement ratio washout volume and k(ep) appear to predict breast cancer response after one cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This observation should be confirmed with additional prospective studies.
Authors: Thomas E Yankeelov; William D Rooney; Wei Huang; Jonathan P Dyke; Xin Li; Alina Tudorica; Jing-Huei Lee; Jason A Koutcher; Charles S Springer Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Antonio C Wolff; Donald Berry; Lisa A Carey; Marco Colleoni; Mitchell Dowsett; Matthew Ellis; Judy E Garber; David Mankoff; Soonmyung Paik; Lajos Pusztai; Mary Lou Smith; JoAnne Zujewski Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-02-10 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Sonia P Li; N Jane Taylor; Andreas Makris; Mei-Lin W Ah-See; Mark J Beresford; J James Stirling; James A d'Arcy; David J Collins; Anwar R Padhani Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-09-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Harry D Bear; Stewart Anderson; Roy E Smith; Charles E Geyer; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Bernard Fisher; Ann M Brown; Andre Robidoux; Richard Margolese; Morton S Kahlenberg; Soonmyung Paik; Atilla Soran; D Lawrence Wickerham; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-04-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Xia Li; E Brian Welch; Lori R Arlinghaus; A Bapsi Chakravarthy; Lei Xu; Jaime Farley; Mary E Loveless; Ingrid A Mayer; Mark C Kelley; Ingrid M Meszoely; Julie A Means-Powell; Vandana G Abramson; Ana M Grau; John C Gore; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2011-08-12 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Rong Zhou; Stephen Pickup; Thomas E Yankeelov; Charles S Springer; Jerry D Glickson Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Nkiruka C Atuegwu; Xia Li; Lori R Arlinghaus; Richard G Abramson; Jason M Williams; A Bapsi Chakravarthy; Vandana G Abramson; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Wen Li; David C Newitt; Lisa J Wilmes; Ella F Jones; Vignesh Arasu; Jessica Gibbs; Bo La Yun; Elizabeth Li; Savannah C Partridge; John Kornak; Laura J Esserman; Nola M Hylton Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Hakmook Kang; Allison Hainline; Lori R Arlinghaus; Stephanie Elderidge; Xia Li; Vandana G Abramson; Anuradha Bapsi Chakravarthy; Richard G Abramson; Brian Bingham; Kareem Fakhoury; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2017-12-29
Authors: Anna G Sorace; Savannah C Partridge; Xia Li; Jack Virostko; Stephanie L Barnes; Daniel S Hippe; Wei Huang; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-01-22
Authors: Xia Li; Hakmook Kang; Lori R Arlinghaus; Richard G Abramson; A Bapsi Chakravarthy; Vandana G Abramson; Jaime Farley; Melinda Sanders; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Jared A Weis; Michael I Miga; Lori R Arlinghaus; Xia Li; Vandana Abramson; A Bapsi Chakravarthy; Praveen Pendyala; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2015-09-02 Impact factor: 12.701