Lakshmanan Sannachi1,2,3, Mehrdad Gangeh1,2, Hadi Tadayyon1,2, Ali Sadeghi-Naini1,2,3, Sonal Gandhi4, Frances C Wright5, Elzbieta Slodkowska6, Belinda Curpen7, William Tran1,2, Gregory J Czarnota1,2,3. 1. Physical Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. Department of Medical Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Division of Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Division of General Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. Department of Anatomic Pathology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 7. Division of Breast Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pathological response of breast cancer to chemotherapy is a prognostic indicator for long-term disease free and overall survival. Responses of locally advanced breast cancer in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) settings are often variable, and the prediction of response is imperfect. The purpose of this study was to detect primary tumor responses early after the start of neoadjuvant chemotherapy using quantitative ultrasound (QUS), textural analysis and molecular features in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. METHODS: The study included ninety six patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast tumors were scanned with a clinical ultrasound system prior to chemotherapy treatment, during the first, fourth and eighth week of treatment, and prior to surgery. Quantitative ultrasound parameters and scatterer-based features were calculated from ultrasound radio frequency (RF) data within tumor regions of interest. Additionally, texture features were extracted from QUS parametric maps. Prior to therapy, all patients underwent a core needle biopsy and histological subtypes and biomarker ER, PR, and HER2 status were determined. Patients were classified into three treatment response groups based on combination of clinical and pathological analyses: complete responders (CR), partial responders (PR), and non-responders (NR). Response classifications from QUS parameters, receptors status and pathological were compared. Discriminant analysis was performed on extracted parameters using a support vector machine classifier to categorize subjects into CR, PR, and NR groups at all scan times. RESULTS: Of the 96 patients, the number of CR, PR and NR patients were 21, 52, and 23, respectively. The best prediction of treatment response was achieved with the combination mean QUS values, texture and molecular features with accuracies of 78%, 86% and 83% at weeks 1, 4, and 8, after treatment respectively. Mean QUS parameters or clinical receptors status alone predicted the three response groups with accuracies less than 60% at all scan time points. Recurrence free survival (RFS) of response groups determined based on combined features followed similar trend as determined based on clinical and pathology. CONCLUSIONS: This work demonstrates the potential of using QUS, texture and molecular features for predicting the response of primary breast tumors to chemotherapy early, and guiding the treatment planning of refractory patients.
BACKGROUND: Pathological response of breast cancer to chemotherapy is a prognostic indicator for long-term disease free and overall survival. Responses of locally advanced breast cancer in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) settings are often variable, and the prediction of response is imperfect. The purpose of this study was to detect primary tumor responses early after the start of neoadjuvant chemotherapy using quantitative ultrasound (QUS), textural analysis and molecular features in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. METHODS: The study included ninety six patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast tumors were scanned with a clinical ultrasound system prior to chemotherapy treatment, during the first, fourth and eighth week of treatment, and prior to surgery. Quantitative ultrasound parameters and scatterer-based features were calculated from ultrasound radio frequency (RF) data within tumor regions of interest. Additionally, texture features were extracted from QUS parametric maps. Prior to therapy, all patients underwent a core needle biopsy and histological subtypes and biomarker ER, PR, and HER2 status were determined. Patients were classified into three treatment response groups based on combination of clinical and pathological analyses: complete responders (CR), partial responders (PR), and non-responders (NR). Response classifications from QUS parameters, receptors status and pathological were compared. Discriminant analysis was performed on extracted parameters using a support vector machine classifier to categorize subjects into CR, PR, and NR groups at all scan times. RESULTS: Of the 96 patients, the number of CR, PR and NR patients were 21, 52, and 23, respectively. The best prediction of treatment response was achieved with the combination mean QUS values, texture and molecular features with accuracies of 78%, 86% and 83% at weeks 1, 4, and 8, after treatment respectively. Mean QUS parameters or clinical receptors status alone predicted the three response groups with accuracies less than 60% at all scan time points. Recurrence free survival (RFS) of response groups determined based on combined features followed similar trend as determined based on clinical and pathology. CONCLUSIONS: This work demonstrates the potential of using QUS, texture and molecular features for predicting the response of primary breast tumors to chemotherapy early, and guiding the treatment planning of refractory patients.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
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: F L Lizzi; D L King; M C Rorke; J Hui; M Ostromogilsky; M M Yaremko; E J Feleppa; P Wai Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 1988 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Darren Roblyer; Shigeto Ueda; Albert Cerussi; Wendy Tanamai; Amanda Durkin; Rita Mehta; David Hsiang; John A Butler; Christine McLaren; Wen-Pin Chen; Bruce Tromberg Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-08-18 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Roxana M Vlad; Sebastian Brand; Anoja Giles; Michael C Kolios; Gregory J Czarnota Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-03-10 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Fabrice Andre; Chafika Mazouni; Cornelia Liedtke; Shu-Wan Kau; Debby Frye; Marjorie Green; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; W Fraser Symmans; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Lajos Pusztai Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2007-04-28 Impact factor: 4.872
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