Quing Zhu1,2, Foluso O Ademuyiwa3, Catherine Young4, Catherine Appleton5, Matthew F Covington6, Cynthia Ma3, Souzan Sanati7, Ian S Hagemann8, Atahar Mostafa9, K M Shihab Uddin9, Isabella Grigsby3, Ashley E Frith3, Leonel F Hernandez-Aya3, Steven S Poplack8,10. 1. Biomedical Engineering and Radiology, Washington University in St Louis, One Brookings Drive, Mail Box 1097, Whitaker Hall 200F, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA. zhu.q@wustl.edu. 2. Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St. Louis, USA. zhu.q@wustl.edu. 3. Medical Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St. Louis, USA. 4. Washington Baylor Scott & White Health, Medical Center, Texas, Dallas, USA. 5. Diagnostic Imaging Associates, Ltd. St. Luke's Hospital, Chesterfield, USA. 6. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA. 7. Pathology, Department of Pathology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, USA. 8. Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St. Louis, USA. 9. Biomedical Engineering and Radiology, Washington University in St Louis, One Brookings Drive, Mail Box 1097, Whitaker Hall 200F, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA. 10. Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to assess the utility of tumor biomarkers, ultrasound (US) and US-guided diffuse optical tomography (DOT) in early prediction of breast cancer response to neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). METHODS: This prospective HIPAA compliant study was approved by the institutional review board. Forty one patients were imaged with US and US-guided DOT prior to NAT, at completion of the first three treatment cycles, and prior to definitive surgery from February 2017 to January 2020. Miller-Payne grading was used to assess pathologic response. Receiver operating characteristic curves (ROCs) were derived from logistic regression using independent variables, including: tumor biomarkers, US maximum diameter, percentage reduction of the diameter (%US), pretreatment maximum total hemoglobin concentration (HbT) and percentage reduction in HbT (%HbT) at different treatment time points. Resulting ROCs were compared using area under the curve (AUC). Statistical significance was tested using two-sided two-sample student t-test with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Logistic regression was used for ROC analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients (mean age = 47, range 24-71 years) successfully completed the study, including 15 HER2 + of which 11 were ER + ; 12 ER + or PR + /HER2-, and 11 triple negative. The combination of HER2 and ER biomarkers, %HbT at the end of cycle 1 (EOC1) and %US (EOC1) provided the best early prediction, AUC = 0.941 (95% CI 0.869-1.0). Similarly an AUC of 0.910 (95% CI 0.810-1.0) with %US (EOC1) and %HbT (EOC1) can be achieved independent of HER2 and ER status. The most accurate prediction, AUC = 0.974 (95% CI 0.933-1.0), was achieved with %US at EOC1 and %HbT (EOC3) independent of biomarker status. CONCLUSION: The combined use of tumor HER2 and ER status, US, and US-guided DOT may provide accurate prediction of NAT response as early as the completion of the first treatment cycle. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02891681. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02891681 , Registration time: September 7, 2016.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to assess the utility of tumor biomarkers, ultrasound (US) and US-guided diffuse optical tomography (DOT) in early prediction of breast cancer response to neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). METHODS: This prospective HIPAA compliant study was approved by the institutional review board. Forty one patients were imaged with US and US-guided DOT prior to NAT, at completion of the first three treatment cycles, and prior to definitive surgery from February 2017 to January 2020. Miller-Payne grading was used to assess pathologic response. Receiver operating characteristic curves (ROCs) were derived from logistic regression using independent variables, including: tumor biomarkers, US maximum diameter, percentage reduction of the diameter (%US), pretreatment maximum total hemoglobin concentration (HbT) and percentage reduction in HbT (%HbT) at different treatment time points. Resulting ROCs were compared using area under the curve (AUC). Statistical significance was tested using two-sided two-sample student t-test with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Logistic regression was used for ROC analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients (mean age = 47, range 24-71 years) successfully completed the study, including 15 HER2 + of which 11 were ER + ; 12 ER + or PR + /HER2-, and 11 triple negative. The combination of HER2 and ER biomarkers, %HbT at the end of cycle 1 (EOC1) and %US (EOC1) provided the best early prediction, AUC = 0.941 (95% CI 0.869-1.0). Similarly an AUC of 0.910 (95% CI 0.810-1.0) with %US (EOC1) and %HbT (EOC1) can be achieved independent of HER2 and ER status. The most accurate prediction, AUC = 0.974 (95% CI 0.933-1.0), was achieved with %US at EOC1 and %HbT (EOC3) independent of biomarker status. CONCLUSION: The combined use of tumor HER2 and ER status, US, and US-guided DOT may provide accurate prediction of NAT response as early as the completion of the first treatment cycle. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02891681. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02891681 , Registration time: September 7, 2016.
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: Sara Sheikhbahaei; Tyler J Trahan; Jennifer Xiao; Mehdi Taghipour; Esther Mena; Roisin M Connolly; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-07-08
Authors: Sara A Hurvitz; Miguel Martin; W Fraser Symmans; Kyung Hae Jung; Chiun-Sheng Huang; Alastair M Thompson; Nadia Harbeck; Vicente Valero; Daniil Stroyakovskiy; Hans Wildiers; Mario Campone; Jean-François Boileau; Matthias W Beckmann; Karen Afenjar; Rodrigo Fresco; Hans-Joachim Helms; Jin Xu; Yvonne G Lin; Joseph Sparano; Dennis Slamon Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-11-23 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Melissa Krystel-Whittemore; Jin Xu; Edi Brogi; Katia Ventura; Sujata Patil; Dara S Ross; Chau Dang; Mark Robson; Larry Norton; Monica Morrow; Hannah Y Wen Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 4.872
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: Patricia Cortazar; Lijun Zhang; Michael Untch; Keyur Mehta; Joseph P Costantino; Norman Wolmark; Hervé Bonnefoi; David Cameron; Luca Gianni; Pinuccia Valagussa; Sandra M Swain; Tatiana Prowell; Sibylle Loibl; D Lawrence Wickerham; Jan Bogaerts; Jose Baselga; Charles Perou; Gideon Blumenthal; Jens Blohmer; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Jonas Bergh; Vladimir Semiglazov; Robert Justice; Holger Eidtmann; Soonmyung Paik; Martine Piccart; Rajeshwari Sridhara; Peter A Fasching; Leen Slaets; Shenghui Tang; Bernd Gerber; Charles E Geyer; Richard Pazdur; Nina Ditsch; Priya Rastogi; Wolfgang Eiermann; Gunter von Minckwitz Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Brian D Lehmann; Bojana Jovanović; Xi Chen; Monica V Estrada; Kimberly N Johnson; Yu Shyr; Harold L Moses; Melinda E Sanders; Jennifer A Pietenpol Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Caridad Díaz; Carmen González-Olmedo; Leticia Díaz-Beltrán; José Camacho; Patricia Mena García; Ariadna Martín-Blázquez; Mónica Fernández-Navarro; Ana Laura Ortega-Granados; Fernando Gálvez-Montosa; Juan Antonio Marchal; Francisca Vicente; José Pérez Del Palacio; Pedro Sánchez-Rovira Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2022-04-14 Impact factor: 7.449