PURPOSE: To evaluate optimal contrast kinetics thresholds for measuring functional tumor volume (FTV) by breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for assessment of recurrence-free survival (RFS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved retrospective study of 64 patients (ages 29-72, median age of 48.6) undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for breast cancer, all patients underwent pre-MRI1 and postchemotherapy MRI4 of the breast. Tumor was defined as voxels meeting thresholds for early percent enhancement (PEthresh) and early-to-late signal enhancement ratio (SERthresh); and FTV (PEthresh, SERthresh) by summing all voxels meeting threshold criteria and minimum connectivity requirements. Ranges of PEthresh from 50% to 220% and SERthresh from 0.0 to 2.0 were evaluated. A Cox proportional hazard model determined associations between change in FTV over treatment and RFS at different PE and SER thresholds. RESULTS: The plot of hazard ratios for change in FTV from MRI1 to MRI4 showed a broad peak with the maximum hazard ratio and highest significance occurring at PE threshold of 70% and SER threshold of 1.0 (hazard ratio = 8.71, 95% confidence interval 2.86-25.5, P < 0.00015), indicating optimal model fit. CONCLUSION: Enhancement thresholds affect the ability of MRI tumor volume to predict RFS. The value is robust over a wide range of thresholds, supporting the use of FTV as a biomarker.
PURPOSE: To evaluate optimal contrast kinetics thresholds for measuring functional tumor volume (FTV) by breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for assessment of recurrence-free survival (RFS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved retrospective study of 64 patients (ages 29-72, median age of 48.6) undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for breast cancer, all patients underwent pre-MRI1 and postchemotherapy MRI4 of the breast. Tumor was defined as voxels meeting thresholds for early percent enhancement (PEthresh) and early-to-late signal enhancement ratio (SERthresh); and FTV (PEthresh, SERthresh) by summing all voxels meeting threshold criteria and minimum connectivity requirements. Ranges of PEthresh from 50% to 220% and SERthresh from 0.0 to 2.0 were evaluated. A Cox proportional hazard model determined associations between change in FTV over treatment and RFS at different PE and SER thresholds. RESULTS: The plot of hazard ratios for change in FTV from MRI1 to MRI4 showed a broad peak with the maximum hazard ratio and highest significance occurring at PE threshold of 70% and SER threshold of 1.0 (hazard ratio = 8.71, 95% confidence interval 2.86-25.5, P < 0.00015), indicating optimal model fit. CONCLUSION: Enhancement thresholds affect the ability of MRI tumor volume to predict RFS. The value is robust over a wide range of thresholds, supporting the use of FTV as a biomarker.
Authors: Martin D Pickles; Martin Lowry; David J Manton; Peter Gibbs; Lindsay W Turnbull Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Jessica E Gibbs; Ying Lu; Laura J Esserman; Debasish Tripathy; Dulcy S Wolverton; Hope S Rugo; E Shelley Hwang; Cheryl A Ewing; Nola M Hylton Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Anees B Chagpar; Lavinia P Middleton; Aysegul A Sahin; Peter Dempsey; Aman U Buzdar; Attiqa N Mirza; Fredrick C Ames; Gildy V Babiera; Barry W Feig; Kelly K Hunt; Henry M Kuerer; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Merrick I Ross; S Eva Singletary Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: G Bonadonna; P Valagussa; C Brambilla; L Ferrari; A Moliterni; M Terenziani; M Zambetti Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ka-Loh Li; Savannah C Partridge; Bonnie N Joe; Jessica E Gibbs; Ying Lu; Laura J Esserman; Nola M Hylton Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: B Fisher; J Bryant; N Wolmark; E Mamounas; A Brown; E R Fisher; D L Wickerham; M Begovic; A DeCillis; A Robidoux; R G Margolese; A B Cruz; J L Hoehn; A W Lees; N V Dimitrov; H D Bear Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: W Fraser Symmans; Florentia Peintinger; Christos Hatzis; Radhika Rajan; Henry Kuerer; Vicente Valero; Lina Assad; Anna Poniecka; Bryan Hennessy; Marjorie Green; Aman U Buzdar; S Eva Singletary; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Lajos Pusztai Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-09-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ka-Loh Li; Roland G Henry; Lisa J Wilmes; Jessica Gibbs; Xiaoping Zhu; Ying Lu; Nola M Hylton Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Claudette E Loo; Lisanne S Rigter; Kenneth E Pengel; Jelle Wesseling; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters; Karolina Sikorska; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Adam Olshen; Denise Wolf; Ella F Jones; David Newitt; Laura J van ‘t Veer; Christina Yau; Laura Esserman; Julia D Wulfkuhle; Rosa I Gallagher; Lisa Singer; Emanuel F Petricoin; Nola Hylton; Catherine C Park Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2017-12-23
Authors: Shelley A Henderson; Nazleen Muhammad Gowdh; Colin A Purdie; Lee B Jordan; Andrew Evans; Tracy Brunton; Alastair M Thompson; Sarah Vinnicombe Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Wei-Ching Lo; Wen Li; Ella F Jones; David C Newitt; John Kornak; Lisa J Wilmes; Laura J Esserman; Nola M Hylton Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 3.240