Ai Amioka1, Norio Masumoto1, Noriko Gouda1, Keiko Kajitani1, Hideo Shigematsu1, Akiko Emi1, Takayuki Kadoya1, Morihito Okada2. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, Research Institute for Radiation Biology and Medicine, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan. 2. Department of Surgical Oncology, Research Institute for Radiation Biology and Medicine, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan morihito@hiroshima-u.ac.jp.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether contrast-enhanced ultrasonography can predict the effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on breast cancer. METHODS: The clinical responses of 63 consecutive patients with breast cancer (T1-4, N0-1, M0) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy between October 2012 and May 2015 were assessed using contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography/computed tomography and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Perfusion parameters for contrast-enhanced ultrasonography were created from time-intensity curves based on enhancement intensity and temporal changes to objectively evaluate contrast-enhanced ultrasonography findings. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography to predict a pathological complete response were compared after confirming the pathological findings of surgical specimens. RESULTS: Twenty-three (36.5%) of the 63 patients achieved pathological complete response. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for predicting pathological complete response were 95.7% (82.5-99.2%), 77.5% (69.9-79.5%) and 84.1% (74.5-86.7%). The sensitivity of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography was significantly greater than that of magnetic resonance imaging (95.7 vs. 69.6%, P = 0.047). The specificity and accuracy were significantly greater and tended to be greater, respectively, for contrast-enhanced ultrasonography than positron emission tomography/computed tomography (specificity, 77.5 vs. 52.5%, P = 0.02; accuracy, 84.1 vs. 69.8%, P = 0.057). CONCLUSIONS: Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography might serve as a new diagnostic modality when planning therapeutic strategies for patients with breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether contrast-enhanced ultrasonography can predict the effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on breast cancer. METHODS: The clinical responses of 63 consecutive patients with breast cancer (T1-4, N0-1, M0) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy between October 2012 and May 2015 were assessed using contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography/computed tomography and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Perfusion parameters for contrast-enhanced ultrasonography were created from time-intensity curves based on enhancement intensity and temporal changes to objectively evaluate contrast-enhanced ultrasonography findings. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography to predict a pathological complete response were compared after confirming the pathological findings of surgical specimens. RESULTS: Twenty-three (36.5%) of the 63 patients achieved pathological complete response. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for predicting pathological complete response were 95.7% (82.5-99.2%), 77.5% (69.9-79.5%) and 84.1% (74.5-86.7%). The sensitivity of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography was significantly greater than that of magnetic resonance imaging (95.7 vs. 69.6%, P = 0.047). The specificity and accuracy were significantly greater and tended to be greater, respectively, for contrast-enhanced ultrasonography than positron emission tomography/computed tomography (specificity, 77.5 vs. 52.5%, P = 0.02; accuracy, 84.1 vs. 69.8%, P = 0.057). CONCLUSIONS: Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography might serve as a new diagnostic modality when planning therapeutic strategies for patients with breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Authors: Anne F Schott; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Mark A Helvie; Daniel F Hayes; Celina G Kleer; Lisa A Newman; Lori J Pierce; Kent A Griffith; Susan Murray; Karen A Hunt; Chintana Paramagul; Laurence H Baker Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Davendra Segara; Ian E Krop; Judy E Garber; Eric Winer; Lyndsay Harris; Jennifer R Bellon; Robyn Birdwell; Susan Lester; Stuart Lipsitz; J Dirk Iglehart; Mehra Golshan Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2007-11-01 Impact factor: 3.454