Anna D'Angelo1, Armando Orlandi2, Enida Bufi3, Sara Mercogliano3, Paolo Belli3, Riccardo Manfredi3. 1. Dipartimento di diagnostica per immagini, Radioterapia, Oncologia ed ematologia, Fondazione Universitaria A. Gemelli, IRCCS Roma, Roma, Italy. anna.dangelo@policlinicogemelli.it. 2. Dipartimento di oncologia medica, Fondazione Universitaria A. Gemelli, IRCCS Roma, Roma, Italy. 3. Dipartimento di diagnostica per immagini, Radioterapia, Oncologia ed ematologia, Fondazione Universitaria A. Gemelli, IRCCS Roma, Roma, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the role of automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) compared to handheld ultrasound (HHUS) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) in the early detection of patients with locally advanced breast cancer who are more likely to reach a complete pathological response (pCR) during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). METHODS: A single-institution prospective study was performed in patients with histological diagnosis of invasive breast cancer, eligible for NAC, and who were to undergo surgery in our Hospital. Imaging examinations with ABVS, HHUS and CE-MRI were performed at diagnosis (basal time) and after 3 months of chemotherapy (middle time). The tumor size of each lesion was measured at the basal and middle times, and the dimensional variation was reported. Based on this, patients were divided dichotomously by the median value, obtaining "good responders" (goodR) versus "poor responders" (poorR). The results were correlated with the histological assessment (pCR versus No-pCR) with the use of the intergroup comparison of categorical data (Fisher's exact test). RESULT: A total of 21 patients were included; 5 obtained a pCR (23%). Both the ABVS and the CE-MRI found all 5 patients with pCR in the group of goodR (10 patients), while none of the poorR (11 patients) obtained a pCR [correlation was statistically significant (p 0.01)]. In the HHUS, goodR (10 patients) 1 obtained a pCR while in the poorR (11 patients) 4 obtained a pCR [correlation not statistically significant (p 0.31)]. CONCLUSIONS: ABVS could be a useful tool, appearing to be more reliable than HHUS, and as accurate as CE-MRI, in early detection of patients who could reach a pCR after NAC.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the role of automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) compared to handheld ultrasound (HHUS) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) in the early detection of patients with locally advanced breast cancer who are more likely to reach a complete pathological response (pCR) during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). METHODS: A single-institution prospective study was performed in patients with histological diagnosis of invasive breast cancer, eligible for NAC, and who were to undergo surgery in our Hospital. Imaging examinations with ABVS, HHUS and CE-MRI were performed at diagnosis (basal time) and after 3 months of chemotherapy (middle time). The tumor size of each lesion was measured at the basal and middle times, and the dimensional variation was reported. Based on this, patients were divided dichotomously by the median value, obtaining "good responders" (goodR) versus "poor responders" (poorR). The results were correlated with the histological assessment (pCR versus No-pCR) with the use of the intergroup comparison of categorical data (Fisher's exact test). RESULT: A total of 21 patients were included; 5 obtained a pCR (23%). Both the ABVS and the CE-MRI found all 5 patients with pCR in the group of goodR (10 patients), while none of the poorR (11 patients) obtained a pCR [correlation was statistically significant (p 0.01)]. In the HHUS, goodR (10 patients) 1 obtained a pCR while in the poorR (11 patients) 4 obtained a pCR [correlation not statistically significant (p 0.31)]. CONCLUSIONS: ABVS could be a useful tool, appearing to be more reliable than HHUS, and as accurate as CE-MRI, in early detection of patients who could reach a pCR after NAC.
Entities:
Keywords:
Automated breast volume scanner; Breast cancer; Handheld ultrasound; Magnetic resonance imaging; Neoadjuvant chemotherapy; Pathological complete response
Authors: Temel Tirkes; Margaret A Hollar; Mark Tann; Marc D Kohli; Fatih Akisik; Kumaresan Sandrasegaran Journal: Radiographics Date: 2013 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Ramon Colomer; Cristina Saura; Pedro Sánchez-Rovira; Tomás Pascual; Isabel T Rubio; Octavio Burgués; Lourdes Marcos; César A Rodríguez; Miguel Martín; Ana Lluch Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-02-01
Authors: Michael Luke Marinovich; Nehmat Houssami; Petra Macaskill; Gunter von Minckwitz; Jens-Uwe Blohmer; Les Irwig Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-11-25 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Francesco Sardanelli; Carla Boetes; Bettina Borisch; Thomas Decker; Massimo Federico; Fiona J Gilbert; Thomas Helbich; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Werner A Kaiser; Michael J Kerin; Robert E Mansel; Lorenza Marotti; Laura Martincich; Louis Mauriac; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Roberto Orecchia; Pietro Panizza; Antonio Ponti; Arnie D Purushotham; Peter Regitnig; Marco Rosselli Del Turco; Fabienne Thibault; Robin Wilson Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2010-03-19 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Julie R Gralow; Harold J Burstein; William Wood; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Luca Gianni; Gunter von Minckwitz; Aman U Buzdar; Ian E Smith; William F Symmans; Baljit Singh; Eric P Winer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-02-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Briete Goorts; Kelly M A Dreuning; Janneke B Houwers; Loes F S Kooreman; Evert-Jan G Boerma; Ritse M Mann; Marc B I Lobbes; Marjolein L Smidt Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2018-04-18 Impact factor: 6.466