Pamela G Anderson1, Sirishma Kalli2, Angelo Sassaroli1, Nishanth Krishnamurthy1, Shital S Makim2, Roger A Graham3, Sergio Fantini4. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Tufts University, 4 Colby Street, Medford, MA 02155. 2. Department of Radiology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Surgery, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Tufts University, 4 Colby Street, Medford, MA 02155. Electronic address: Sergio.fantini@tufts.edu.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We present an optical mammography study that aims to develop quantitative measures of pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with breast cancer. Such quantitative measures are based on the concentrations of oxyhemoglobin ([HbO2]), deoxyhemoglobin ([Hb]), total hemoglobin ([HbT]), and hemoglobin saturation (SO2) in breast tissue at the tumor location and at sequential time points during chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Continuous-wave, spectrally resolved optical mammography was performed in transmission and parallel-plate geometry on 10 patients before treatment initiation and at each NAC administration (mean number of optical mammography sessions: 12, range: 7-18). Data on two patients were discarded for technical reasons. The patients were categorized as responders (R, >50% decrease in tumor size), or nonresponders (NR, <50% decrease in tumor size) based on imaging and histopathology results. RESULTS: At 50% completion of the NAC regimen (therapy midpoint), R (6/8) demonstrated significant decreases in SO2 (-27% ± 4%) and [HbT] (-35 ± 4 µM) at the tumor location with respect to baseline values. By contrast, NR (2/8) showed nonsignificant changes in SO2 and [HbT] at therapy midpoint. We introduce a cumulative response index as a quantitative measure of the individual patient's response to therapy. At therapy midpoint, the SO2-based cumulative response index had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 100% for the identification of R. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that optical mammography is a promising tool to assess individual response to NAC at therapy midpoint to guide further decision making for neoadjuvant therapy.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We present an optical mammography study that aims to develop quantitative measures of pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with breast cancer. Such quantitative measures are based on the concentrations of oxyhemoglobin ([HbO2]), deoxyhemoglobin ([Hb]), total hemoglobin ([HbT]), and hemoglobin saturation (SO2) in breast tissue at the tumor location and at sequential time points during chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Continuous-wave, spectrally resolved optical mammography was performed in transmission and parallel-plate geometry on 10 patients before treatment initiation and at each NAC administration (mean number of optical mammography sessions: 12, range: 7-18). Data on two patients were discarded for technical reasons. The patients were categorized as responders (R, >50% decrease in tumor size), or nonresponders (NR, <50% decrease in tumor size) based on imaging and histopathology results. RESULTS: At 50% completion of the NAC regimen (therapy midpoint), R (6/8) demonstrated significant decreases in SO2 (-27% ± 4%) and [HbT] (-35 ± 4 µM) at the tumor location with respect to baseline values. By contrast, NR (2/8) showed nonsignificant changes in SO2 and [HbT] at therapy midpoint. We introduce a cumulative response index as a quantitative measure of the individual patient's response to therapy. At therapy midpoint, the SO2-based cumulative response index had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 100% for the identification of R. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that optical mammography is a promising tool to assess individual response to NAC at therapy midpoint to guide further decision making for neoadjuvant therapy.
Authors: Shigeto Ueda; Darren Roblyer; Albert Cerussi; Amanda Durkin; Anais Leproux; Ylenia Santoro; Shanshan Xu; Thomas D O'Sullivan; David Hsiang; Rita Mehta; John Butler; Bruce J Tromberg Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2012-07-09 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Claudette E Loo; Marieke E Straver; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Sara H Muller; Jelle Wesseling; Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-01-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Marius G Pakalniskis; Wendy A Wells; Mary C Schwab; Heather M Froehlich; Shudong Jiang; Zhongze Li; Tor D Tosteson; Steven P Poplack; Peter A Kaufman; Brian W Pogue; Keith D Paulsen Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-03-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: S Rodenhuis; I A M Mandjes; J Wesseling; M J van de Vijver; M-J T D F Vrancken Peeters; G S Sonke; S C Linn Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2009-08-28 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: David R Busch; Regine Choe; Mark A Rosen; Wensheng Guo; Turgut Durduran; Michael D Feldman; Carolyn Mies; Brian J Czerniecki; Julia Tchou; Angela Demichele; Mitchell D Schnall; Arjun G Yodh Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2012-12-14 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: M V Waks Serra; V Noseda Grau; D A Vera; S Jodra; H A García; N A Carbone; P A Pardini; J A Pomarico; D I Iriarte Journal: Heliyon Date: 2022-08-19
Authors: Jeffrey M Cochran; David R Busch; Anaïs Leproux; Zheng Zhang; Thomas D O'Sullivan; Albert E Cerussi; Philip M Carpenter; Rita S Mehta; Darren Roblyer; Wei Yang; Keith D Paulsen; Brian Pogue; Shudong Jiang; Peter A Kaufman; So Hyun Chung; Mitchell Schnall; Bradley S Snyder; Nola Hylton; Stefan A Carp; Steven J Isakoff; David Mankoff; Bruce J Tromberg; Arjun G Yodh Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 3.170