BACKGROUND: Elucidation the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in breast cancer is important for informing therapeutic decisions. This study aimed at evaluating the potential value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) parameters in predicting breast cancer responses to NAC. METHODS: We performed CEUS examinations before and after two cycles of NAC. Quantitative CEUS parameters [maximum intensity (IMAX), rise time (RT), time to peak (TTP), and mean transit time (mTT)], tumor diameter, and their changes were measured and compared to histopathological responses, according to the Miller-Payne Grading (MPG) system (score 1, 2, or 3: minor response; score 4 or 5: good response). Prediction models for good response were developed by multiple logistic regression analysis and internally validated through bootstrap analysis. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the performance of prediction models. RESULTS: A total of 143 patients were enrolled in this study among whom 98 (68.5%) achieved a good response and while 45 (31.5%) exhibited a minor response. Several imaging variables including diameter, IMAX, changes in diameter (Δdiameter), IMAX (ΔIMAX) and TTP (ΔTTP) were found to be significantly associated with good therapeutic responses (P<0.05). The areas under the curve (AUC) increased from 0.748 to 0.841 in the multivariate model that combined CEUS parameters and molecular subtypes with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.786, 0.745, respectively. Tumor molecular subtype was the primary predictor of primary endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: CEUS is a potential tool for predicting responses to NAC in locally advanced breast cancer patients. Compared to the other molecular subtypes, triple negative and HER2+/ER- subtypes are more likely to exhibit a good response to NAC. 2021 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Elucidation the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in breast cancer is important for informing therapeutic decisions. This study aimed at evaluating the potential value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) parameters in predicting breast cancer responses to NAC. METHODS: We performed CEUS examinations before and after two cycles of NAC. Quantitative CEUS parameters [maximum intensity (IMAX), rise time (RT), time to peak (TTP), and mean transit time (mTT)], tumor diameter, and their changes were measured and compared to histopathological responses, according to the Miller-Payne Grading (MPG) system (score 1, 2, or 3: minor response; score 4 or 5: good response). Prediction models for good response were developed by multiple logistic regression analysis and internally validated through bootstrap analysis. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the performance of prediction models. RESULTS: A total of 143 patients were enrolled in this study among whom 98 (68.5%) achieved a good response and while 45 (31.5%) exhibited a minor response. Several imaging variables including diameter, IMAX, changes in diameter (Δdiameter), IMAX (ΔIMAX) and TTP (ΔTTP) were found to be significantly associated with good therapeutic responses (P<0.05). The areas under the curve (AUC) increased from 0.748 to 0.841 in the multivariate model that combined CEUS parameters and molecular subtypes with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.786, 0.745, respectively. Tumor molecular subtype was the primary predictor of primary endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: CEUS is a potential tool for predicting responses to NAC in locally advanced breast cancer patients. Compared to the other molecular subtypes, triple negative and HER2+/ER- subtypes are more likely to exhibit a good response to NAC. 2021 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
Authors: Torsten O Nielsen; Maj-Brit Jensen; Samantha Burugu; Dongxia Gao; Charlotte L Tykjaer Jørgensen; Eva Balslev; Bent Ejlertsen Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Kenneth E Pengel; Bas B Koolen; Claudette E Loo; Wouter V Vogel; Jelle Wesseling; Esther H Lips; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Marie Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Keith N Ogston; Iain D Miller; Simon Payne; Andrew W Hutcheon; Tarun K Sarkar; Ian Smith; A Schofield; Steven D Heys Journal: Breast Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Yinyin Yuan; Henrik Failmezger; Oscar M Rueda; H Raza Ali; Stefan Gräf; Suet-Feung Chin; Roland F Schwarz; Christina Curtis; Mark J Dunning; Helen Bardwell; Nicola Johnson; Sarah Doyle; Gulisa Turashvili; Elena Provenzano; Sam Aparicio; Carlos Caldas; Florian Markowetz Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2012-10-24 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: I Gounaris; E Provenzano; A L Vallier; L Hiller; M Iddawela; S Hilborne; K Taylor; P Britton; H M Earl; R Sinnatamby Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-03-25 Impact factor: 4.872