Nola M Hylton1, Constantine A Gatsonis1, Mark A Rosen1, Constance D Lehman1, David C Newitt1, Savannah C Partridge1, Wanda K Bernreuter1, Etta D Pisano1, Elizabeth A Morris1, Paul T Weatherall1, Sandra M Polin1, Gillian M Newstead1, Helga S Marques1, Laura J Esserman1, Mitchell D Schnall1. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (N.M.H., D.C.N.) and Surgery (L.J.E.), University of California, San Francisco, 1600 Divisadero St, Room C250, Box 1667, San Francisco, CA 94115; Department of Biostatistics (C.A.G.) and Center for Statistical Sciences (C.A.G., H.S.M.), Brown University, Providence, RI; American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN), Philadelphia, Pa (C.A.G., H.S.M., M.D.S.); Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (M.A.R., M.D.S.); Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (C.D.L., S.C.P.); Department of Radiology, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Ala (W.K.B.); Department of Radiology, Medical College of South Carolina, Charleston, SC (E.D.P.); Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (E.A.M.); Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Tex (P.T.W.); Department of Radiology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC (S.M.P.); and Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill (G.M.N.).
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate volumetric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for predicting recurrence-free survival (RFS) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) of breast cancer and to consider its predictive performance relative to pathologic complete response (PCR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant prospective multicenter study was approved by institutional review boards with written informed consent. Women with breast tumors 3 cm or larger scheduled for NACT underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging before treatment (examination 1), after one cycle (examination 2), midtherapy (examination 3), and before surgery (examination 4). Functional tumor volume (FTV), computed from MR images by using enhancement thresholds, and change from baseline (ΔFTV) were measured after one cycle and before surgery. Association of RFS with FTV was assessed by Cox regression and compared with association of RFS with PCR and residual cancer burden (RCB), while controlling for age, race, and hormone receptor (HR)/ human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2) status. Predictive performance of models was evaluated by C statistics. RESULTS: Female patients (n = 162) with FTV and RFS were included. At univariate analysis, FTV2, FTV4, and ΔFTV4 had significant association with RFS, as did HR/HER2 status and RCB class. PCR approached significance at univariate analysis and was not significant at multivariate analysis. At univariate analysis, FTV2 and RCB class had the strongest predictive performance (C statistic = 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58, 0.76), greater than for FTV4 (0.64; 95% CI: 0.53, 0.74) and PCR (0.57; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.74). At multivariate analysis, a model with FTV2, ΔFTV2, RCB class, HR/HER2 status, age, and race had the highest C statistic (0.72; 95% CI: 0.60, 0.84). CONCLUSION: Breast tumor FTV measured by MR imaging is a strong predictor of RFS, even in the presence of PCR and RCB class. Models combining MR imaging, histopathology, and breast cancer subtype demonstrated the strongest predictive performance in this study.
PURPOSE: To evaluate volumetric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for predicting recurrence-free survival (RFS) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) of breast cancer and to consider its predictive performance relative to pathologic complete response (PCR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant prospective multicenter study was approved by institutional review boards with written informed consent. Women with breast tumors 3 cm or larger scheduled for NACT underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging before treatment (examination 1), after one cycle (examination 2), midtherapy (examination 3), and before surgery (examination 4). Functional tumor volume (FTV), computed from MR images by using enhancement thresholds, and change from baseline (ΔFTV) were measured after one cycle and before surgery. Association of RFS with FTV was assessed by Cox regression and compared with association of RFS with PCR and residual cancer burden (RCB), while controlling for age, race, and hormone receptor (HR)/ human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2) status. Predictive performance of models was evaluated by C statistics. RESULTS: Female patients (n = 162) with FTV and RFS were included. At univariate analysis, FTV2, FTV4, and ΔFTV4 had significant association with RFS, as did HR/HER2 status and RCB class. PCR approached significance at univariate analysis and was not significant at multivariate analysis. At univariate analysis, FTV2 and RCB class had the strongest predictive performance (C statistic = 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58, 0.76), greater than for FTV4 (0.64; 95% CI: 0.53, 0.74) and PCR (0.57; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.74). At multivariate analysis, a model with FTV2, ΔFTV2, RCB class, HR/HER2 status, age, and race had the highest C statistic (0.72; 95% CI: 0.60, 0.84). CONCLUSION: Breast tumorFTV measured by MR imaging is a strong predictor of RFS, even in the presence of PCR and RCB class. Models combining MR imaging, histopathology, and breast cancer subtype demonstrated the strongest predictive performance in this study.
Authors: Laura J Esserman; Donald A Berry; Angela DeMichele; Lisa Carey; Sarah E Davis; Meredith Buxton; Cliff Hudis; Joe W Gray; Charles Perou; Christina Yau; Chad Livasy; Helen Krontiras; Leslie Montgomery; Debasish Tripathy; Constance Lehman; Minetta C Liu; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Hope S Rugo; John T Carpenter; Lynn Dressler; David Chhieng; Baljit Singh; Carolyn Mies; Joseph Rabban; Yunn-Yi Chen; Dilip Giri; Laura van 't Veer; Nola Hylton Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-05-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Valencia King; Shari B Goldfarb; Jennifer D Brooks; Janice S Sung; Benjamin F Nulsen; Jolanta E Jozefara; Malcolm C Pike; Maura N Dickler; Elizabeth A Morris Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Nola M Hylton; Jeffrey D Blume; Wanda K Bernreuter; Etta D Pisano; Mark A Rosen; Elizabeth A Morris; Paul T Weatherall; Constance D Lehman; Gillian M Newstead; Sandra Polin; Helga S Marques; Laura J Esserman; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Lisa A Carey; E Claire Dees; Lynda Sawyer; Lisa Gatti; Dominic T Moore; Frances Collichio; David W Ollila; Carolyn I Sartor; Mark L Graham; Charles M Perou Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-04-15 Impact factor: 12.531
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: Laura J Esserman; Donald A Berry; Maggie C U Cheang; Christina Yau; Charles M Perou; Lisa Carey; Angela DeMichele; Joe W Gray; Kathleen Conway-Dorsey; Marc E Lenburg; Meredith B Buxton; Sarah E Davis; Laura J van't Veer; Clifford Hudis; Koei Chin; Denise Wolf; Helen Krontiras; Leslie Montgomery; Debu Tripathy; Constance Lehman; Minetta C Liu; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Hope S Rugo; John T Carpenter; Chad Livasy; Lynn Dressler; David Chhieng; Baljit Singh; Carolyn Mies; Joseph Rabban; Yunni-Yi Chen; Dilip Giri; Alfred Au; Nola Hylton Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-12-25 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Almir G V Bitencourt; Barbara S Pires; Vinicius F Calsavara; Erika M S Negrão; Juliana A Souza; Luciana Graziano; Camila S Guatelli; Fabiana B Makdissi; Solange M Sanches; Monique C Tavares; Cynthia A B T Osório; Marina De Brot; Elvira F Marques; Rubens Chojniak Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Rosalind P Candelaria; Roland L Bassett; William Fraser Symmans; Maheshwari Ramineni; Stacy L Moulder; Henry M Kuerer; Alastair M Thompson; Wei Tse Yang Journal: Oncologist Date: 2017-03-17
Authors: Ke Nie; Hania Al-Hallaq; X Allen Li; Stanley H Benedict; Jason W Sohn; Jean M Moran; Yong Fan; Mi Huang; Michael V Knopp; Jeff M Michalski; James Monroe; Ceferino Obcemea; Christina I Tsien; Timothy Solberg; Jackie Wu; Ping Xia; Ying Xiao; Issam El Naqa Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jia Wu; Yi Cui; Xiaoli Sun; Guohong Cao; Bailiang Li; Debra M Ikeda; Allison W Kurian; Ruijiang Li Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-01-10 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jing Luo; Brian S Johnston; Averi E Kitsch; Daniel S Hippe; Larissa A Korde; Sara Javid; Janie M Lee; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman; Savannah C Partridge; Habib Rahbar Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jamal J Derakhshan; Elizabeth S McDonald; Evan S Siegelman; Mitchell D Schnall; Felix W Wehrli Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Patrick J Bolan; Eunhee Kim; Benjamin A Herman; Gillian M Newstead; Mark A Rosen; Mitchell D Schnall; Etta D Pisano; Paul T Weatherall; Elizabeth A Morris; Constance D Lehman; Michael Garwood; Michael T Nelson; Douglas Yee; Sandra M Polin; Laura J Esserman; Constantine A Gatsonis; Gregory J Metzger; David C Newitt; Savannah C Partridge; Nola M Hylton Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: David C Newitt; Zheng Zhang; Jessica E Gibbs; Savannah C Partridge; Thomas L Chenevert; Mark A Rosen; Patrick J Bolan; Helga S Marques; Sheye Aliu; Wen Li; Lisa Cimino; Bonnie N Joe; Heidi Umphrey; Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Basak Dogan; Karen Oh; Hiroyuki Abe; Jennifer Drukteinis; Laura J Esserman; Nola M Hylton Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 4.813