OBJECTIVES: This pilot study compared contrast enhanced ultrasound (US) with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in assessing the treatment response in patients with breast cancer receiving preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). METHODS: This prospective Institutional Review Board-approved and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study included 30 patients, from January 2014 to October 2015, with invasive breast cancer detected by mammography, conventional US imaging, or both and scheduled for NAC. Informed consent was obtained. Contrast-enhanced US (perflutren lipid microspheres, 10 μL/kg) and MRI (gadopentetate dimeglumine, 0.1 mmol/kg) scans were performed at baseline before starting NAC and after completing NAC before surgery. Results of the imaging techniques were compared with each other and with histopathologic findings obtained at surgery using the Spearman correlation. Tumor size and enhancement parameters were compared for 15 patients with contrast-enhanced US, MRI, and surgical pathologic findings. RESULTS: The median tumor size at baseline was 3.1 cm on both contrast-enhanced US and MRI scans. The Spearman correlation showed strong agreement in tumor size at baseline between contrast-enhanced US and MRI (r = 0.88; P < .001) but less agreement in tumor size after NAC (r = 0.66; P = .004). Trends suggested that contrast-enhanced US (r = 0.75; P < .001) had a better correlation than MRI (r = 0.42; P = .095) with tumor size at surgery. Contrast-enhanced US was as effective as MRI in predicting a complete pathologic response (4 patients; 75.0% accuracy for both) and a non-complete pathologic response (11 patients; 72.7% accuracy for both). CONCLUSIONS: Contrast enhanced US is a valuable imaging modality for assessing the treatment response in patients receiving NAC and had a comparable correlation as MRI with breast cancer size at surgery.
OBJECTIVES: This pilot study compared contrast enhanced ultrasound (US) with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in assessing the treatment response in patients with breast cancer receiving preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). METHODS: This prospective Institutional Review Board-approved and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study included 30 patients, from January 2014 to October 2015, with invasive breast cancer detected by mammography, conventional US imaging, or both and scheduled for NAC. Informed consent was obtained. Contrast-enhanced US (perflutren lipid microspheres, 10 μL/kg) and MRI (gadopentetate dimeglumine, 0.1 mmol/kg) scans were performed at baseline before starting NAC and after completing NAC before surgery. Results of the imaging techniques were compared with each other and with histopathologic findings obtained at surgery using the Spearman correlation. Tumor size and enhancement parameters were compared for 15 patients with contrast-enhanced US, MRI, and surgical pathologic findings. RESULTS: The median tumor size at baseline was 3.1 cm on both contrast-enhanced US and MRI scans. The Spearman correlation showed strong agreement in tumor size at baseline between contrast-enhanced US and MRI (r = 0.88; P < .001) but less agreement in tumor size after NAC (r = 0.66; P = .004). Trends suggested that contrast-enhanced US (r = 0.75; P < .001) had a better correlation than MRI (r = 0.42; P = .095) with tumor size at surgery. Contrast-enhanced US was as effective as MRI in predicting a complete pathologic response (4 patients; 75.0% accuracy for both) and a non-complete pathologic response (11 patients; 72.7% accuracy for both). CONCLUSIONS: Contrast enhanced US is a valuable imaging modality for assessing the treatment response in patients receiving NAC and had a comparable correlation as MRI with breast cancer size at surgery.
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: R Prevos; M L Smidt; V C G Tjan-Heijnen; M van Goethem; R G Beets-Tan; J E Wildberger; M B I Lobbes Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-09-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Robert J McDonald; Jennifer S McDonald; David F Kallmes; Mark E Jentoft; David L Murray; Kent R Thielen; Eric E Williamson; Laurence J Eckel Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Patricia Cortazar; Lijun Zhang; Michael Untch; Keyur Mehta; Joseph P Costantino; Norman Wolmark; Hervé Bonnefoi; David Cameron; Luca Gianni; Pinuccia Valagussa; Sandra M Swain; Tatiana Prowell; Sibylle Loibl; D Lawrence Wickerham; Jan Bogaerts; Jose Baselga; Charles Perou; Gideon Blumenthal; Jens Blohmer; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Jonas Bergh; Vladimir Semiglazov; Robert Justice; Holger Eidtmann; Soonmyung Paik; Martine Piccart; Rajeshwari Sridhara; Peter A Fasching; Leen Slaets; Shenghui Tang; Bernd Gerber; Charles E Geyer; Richard Pazdur; Nina Ditsch; Priya Rastogi; Wolfgang Eiermann; Gunter von Minckwitz Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 79.321
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: Ella F Jones; Deep K Hathi; Rita Freimanis; Rita A Mukhtar; A Jo Chien; Laura J Esserman; Laura J Van't Veer; Bonnie N Joe; Nola M Hylton Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 6.575