Anant Sharma1, Shabnam Bhandari Grover1,2, Chinta Mani3, Charanjeet Ahluwalia4. 1. Department of Radiology and Imaging, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India. 2. Currently at Department of Radiology, School of Medical Sciences and Research, Sharda University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India. 3. Department of Surgery, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India. 4. Department of Pathology, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) quantitative parameters in predicting neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) response in patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC). METHODS: 30 patients with histologically proven LABC scheduled for NACT were recruited. CEUS was performed using a contrast bolus of 4.8 ml and time intensity curves (TICs) were obtained by contrast dynamics software. CEUS quantitative parameters assessed were peak enhancement (PE), time-to-peak (TTP), area under the curve (AUC) and mean transit time (MTT). The parameters were documented on four consecutive instances: before NACT and 3 weeks after each of the three cycles. The gold-standard was pathological response using Miller Payne Score obtained pre NACT and post-surgery. RESULTS: A decrease in mean values of PE and an increase in mean values of TTP and MTT was observed with each cycle of NACT among responders. Post each cycle of NACT (compared with baseline pre-NACT), there was a statistically significant difference in % change of mean values of PE, TTP and MTT between good responders and poor responders (p-value < 0.05). The diagnostic accuracy of TTP post-third cycle was 87.2% (p = 0.03), and MTT post--second and third cycle was 76.7% (p = 0.004) and 86.7% (p = 0.006) respectively. CONCLUSION: In responders, a decrease in the tumor vascularity was reflected in the CEUS quantitative parameters as a reduction in PE, and a prolongation in TTP, MTT. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Prediction of NACT response by CEUS has the potential to serve as a diagnostic modality for modification of chemotherapy regimens during ongoing NACT among patients with LABC, thus affecting patient prognosis.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) quantitative parameters in predicting neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) response in patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC). METHODS: 30 patients with histologically proven LABC scheduled for NACT were recruited. CEUS was performed using a contrast bolus of 4.8 ml and time intensity curves (TICs) were obtained by contrast dynamics software. CEUS quantitative parameters assessed were peak enhancement (PE), time-to-peak (TTP), area under the curve (AUC) and mean transit time (MTT). The parameters were documented on four consecutive instances: before NACT and 3 weeks after each of the three cycles. The gold-standard was pathological response using Miller Payne Score obtained pre NACT and post-surgery. RESULTS: A decrease in mean values of PE and an increase in mean values of TTP and MTT was observed with each cycle of NACT among responders. Post each cycle of NACT (compared with baseline pre-NACT), there was a statistically significant difference in % change of mean values of PE, TTP and MTT between good responders and poor responders (p-value < 0.05). The diagnostic accuracy of TTP post-third cycle was 87.2% (p = 0.03), and MTT post--second and third cycle was 76.7% (p = 0.004) and 86.7% (p = 0.006) respectively. CONCLUSION: In responders, a decrease in the tumor vascularity was reflected in the CEUS quantitative parameters as a reduction in PE, and a prolongation in TTP, MTT. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Prediction of NACT response by CEUS has the potential to serve as a diagnostic modality for modification of chemotherapy regimens during ongoing NACT among patients with LABC, thus affecting patient prognosis.
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: Jason D Keune; Donna B Jeffe; Mario Schootman; Abigail Hoffman; William E Gillanders; Rebecca L Aft Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: P Ricci; V Cantisani; L Ballesio; E Pagliara; E Sallusti; F M Drudi; F Trippa; F Calascibetta; S M Erturk; M Modesti; R Passariello Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 6.548
Authors: Jin You Kim; Jin Joo Kim; Lee Hwangbo; Hie Bum Suh; Suk Kim; Ki Seok Choo; Kyung Jin Nam; Taewoo Kang Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-03-31 Impact factor: 11.105