Literature DB >> 25387885

Accuracy of ultrasound for predicting pathologic response during neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer.

Michael Luke Marinovich1, Nehmat Houssami, Petra Macaskill, Gunter von Minckwitz, Jens-Uwe Blohmer, Les Irwig.   

Abstract

Early assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for breast cancer allows therapy to be tailored; however, optimal response assessment methods have not been established. We estimated the accuracy of ultrasound (US) to predict pathologic complete response (pCR) using common response criteria and pCR definitions, and estimated incremental accuracy over known prognostic variables. Participants undergoing US after two cycles in the GeparTrio trial randomised to no change in NAC were eligible. US response by World Health Organisation (WHO) criteria (1D or 2D) and Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours (RECIST) was assessed. Four pCR definitions were applied. Sensitivity (correct prediction of pCR), specificity (correct prediction of no-pCR) and diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) were calculated. Areas under the curve (AUCs) were derived from logistic regression including patient variables with and without US. In 832 patients, DORs decreased as pCR definitions became less stringent (p = 0.01). For WHO-2D, DORs were as follows: 4.07 (ypT0,ypN0), 3.75 (ypT0/is,ypN0), 3.14 (ypT0/is,ypN+/-) and 2.65 (ypT0/is/1a,ypN+/-). DORs did not differ between US criteria (p = 0.60). High sensitivity and lower specificity were found for WHO-2D and RECIST; WHO-1D was highly specific with low sensitivity. Sensitivity was highest for WHO-2D predicting ypT0,ypN0 (sensitivity = 81.7%, specificity = 47.6% vs. 42.3% and 80.4% for WHO-1D). Adding US to models including patient variables (age, T-stage, histology and subtype) improved AUCs for predicting pCR by 2-3%. In conclusion, US accuracy is highest for predicting ypT0,ypN0, shown to be most prognostic of long-term survival. WHO-2D and RECIST maximise sensitivity; WHO-1D maximises specificity. US modestly improves the prediction of pCR by patient characteristics.
© 2014 UICC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast neoplasms; drug monitoring; neoadjuvant therapy; sensitivity and specificity; ultrasonography

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25387885     DOI: 10.1002/ijc.29323

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  15 in total

1.  Automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) compared to handheld ultrasound (HHUS) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) in the early assessment of breast cancer during neoadjuvant chemotherapy: an emerging role to monitoring tumor response?

Authors:  Anna D'Angelo; Armando Orlandi; Enida Bufi; Sara Mercogliano; Paolo Belli; Riccardo Manfredi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 3.469

2.  Monitoring Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer by Using Three-dimensional Subharmonic Aided Pressure Estimation and Imaging with US Contrast Agents: Preliminary Experience.

Authors:  Kibo Nam; John R Eisenbrey; Maria Stanczak; Anush Sridharan; Adam C Berger; Tiffany Avery; Juan P Palazzo; Flemming Forsberg
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-05-03       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Early Assessment Window for Predicting Breast Cancer Neoadjuvant Therapy using Biomarkers, Ultrasound, and Diffuse Optical Tomography.

Authors:  Quing Zhu; Foluso O Ademuyiwa; Catherine Young; Catherine Appleton; Matthew F Covington; Cynthia Ma; Souzan Sanati; Ian S Hagemann; Atahar Mostafa; K M Shihab Uddin; Isabella Grigsby; Ashley E Frith; Leonel F Hernandez-Aya; Steven S Poplack
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-05-10       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging after Completion of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Can Accurately Discriminate between No Residual Carcinoma and Residual Ductal Carcinoma In Situ in Patients with Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Seho Park; Jung Hyun Yoon; Joohyuk Sohn; Hyung Seok Park; Hee Jung Moon; Min Jung Kim; Eun-Kyung Kim; Seung Il Kim; Byeong-Woo Park
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Early prediction of pathological outcomes to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients using automated breast ultrasound.

Authors:  Xinguang Wang; Ling Huo; Yingjian He; Zhaoqing Fan; Tianfeng Wang; Yuntao Xie; Jinfeng Li; Tao Ouyang
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 5.087

6.  Accuracy of axillary ultrasound after different neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycles in breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Bei-Bei Ye; Hong-Meng Zhao; Yue Yu; Jie Ge; Xin Wang; Xu-Chen Cao
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-05-30

Review 7.  Evaluation of the Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Huan Wang; Xiaoyun Mao
Journal:  Drug Des Devel Ther       Date:  2020-06-18       Impact factor: 4.162

8.  Breast ultrasound: recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging.

Authors:  Andrew Evans; Rubina M Trimboli; Alexandra Athanasiou; Corinne Balleyguier; Pascal A Baltzer; Ulrich Bick; Julia Camps Herrero; Paola Clauser; Catherine Colin; Eleanor Cornford; Eva M Fallenberg; Michael H Fuchsjaeger; Fiona J Gilbert; Thomas H Helbich; Karen Kinkel; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Christiane K Kuhl; Ritse M Mann; Laura Martincich; Pietro Panizza; Federica Pediconi; Ruud M Pijnappel; Katja Pinker; Sophia Zackrisson; Gabor Forrai; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2018-08-09

9.  Monitoring breast cancer response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with ultrasound signal statistics and integrated backscatter.

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

10.  Is Breast Surgery Necessary for Breast Carcinoma in Complete Remission Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy?

Authors:  Hannah Richter; André Hennigs; Benedikt Schaefgen; Markus Hahn; Jens Uwe Blohmer; Sherko Kümmel; Thorsten Kühn; Marc Thill; Kay Friedrichs; Christof Sohn; Michael Golatta; Jörg Heil
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2018-01-22       Impact factor: 2.915

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.