AIMS: To compare the clinical and pathologic assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and describe the various histopathologic changes observed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied a group of 40 patients with locally advanced breast cancer who had their initial workup in the form of clinico-imaging assessment of the size and pretreatment biopsy from the lesion. All the patients received two to six cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, either cyclophosphamide 50 to 60 mg/m 2 IV, doxorubicin 40 to 50 mg/m 2 IV and 5-fluorouracil 500 to 800 mg/m 2 IV (CAF) or cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and 5-fluorouracil (CEF). Clinical and pathologic assessment of response to chemotherapy was done based on the UICC guidelines. RESULT: Complete clinical response (cCR) was seen in 10% cases (4/40), thirty percent patients had (12/40) partial response and 60% (24/40) had stable disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Pathologic complete response (pCR) with no evidence of viable tumor was observed in 20% patients (8/40). Fifteen patients (37.5%) showed partial response and 42.5% patients (17/40) had a stable disease. No patient progressed during the course of chemotherapy. Changes in the tumor type were observed following chemotherapy, most common being the mucinous change. Histologic changes like dyscohesion, shrinkage of tumor cells, elastosis, collagenization, necrosis, lymphocytic reaction, giant cell response are some of the common observations seen following treatment with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Pathologic assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a better predictor than the clinical response. The chemotherapy drugs can be modified based on the response observed after 1-2 cycles of neoadjuvant, the response being based on both tumor and patient's responsiveness.
AIMS: To compare the clinical and pathologic assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and describe the various histopathologic changes observed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied a group of 40 patients with locally advanced breast cancer who had their initial workup in the form of clinico-imaging assessment of the size and pretreatment biopsy from the lesion. All the patients received two to six cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, either cyclophosphamide 50 to 60 mg/m 2 IV, doxorubicin 40 to 50 mg/m 2 IV and 5-fluorouracil 500 to 800 mg/m 2 IV (CAF) or cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and 5-fluorouracil (CEF). Clinical and pathologic assessment of response to chemotherapy was done based on the UICC guidelines. RESULT: Complete clinical response (cCR) was seen in 10% cases (4/40), thirty percent patients had (12/40) partial response and 60% (24/40) had stable disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Pathologic complete response (pCR) with no evidence of viable tumor was observed in 20% patients (8/40). Fifteen patients (37.5%) showed partial response and 42.5% patients (17/40) had a stable disease. No patient progressed during the course of chemotherapy. Changes in the tumor type were observed following chemotherapy, most common being the mucinous change. Histologic changes like dyscohesion, shrinkage of tumor cells, elastosis, collagenization, necrosis, lymphocytic reaction, giant cell response are some of the common observations seen following treatment with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Pathologic assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a better predictor than the clinical response. The chemotherapy drugs can be modified based on the response observed after 1-2 cycles of neoadjuvant, the response being based on both tumor and patient's responsiveness.
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: Jeeyeon Lee; Nora Jee-Young Park; Byeongju Kang; Jin Hyang Jung; Wan Wook Kim; Yee Soo Chae; Soo Jung Lee; Hye Jung Kim; Ji-Young Park; Ho Yong Park Journal: Front Surg Date: 2022-03-31
Authors: Carlos A Castaneda; Elizabeth Mittendorf; Sandro Casavilca; Yun Wu; Miluska Castillo; Patricia Arboleda; Teresa Nunez; Henry Guerra; Carlos Barrionuevo; Ketty Dolores-Cerna; Carolina Belmar-Lopez; Julio Abugattas; Gabriela Calderon; Miguel De La Cruz; Manuel Cotrina; Jorge Dunstan; Henry L Gomez; Tatiana Vidaurre Journal: World J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-10-10
Authors: Hanna Piotrzkowska-Wróblewska; Katarzyna Dobruch-Sobczak; Ziemowit Klimonda; Piotr Karwat; Katarzyna Roszkowska-Purska; Magdalena Gumowska; Jerzy Litniewski Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-03-14 Impact factor: 3.240