Assessment of response to preoperative chemotherapy in patients with stage II an III breast cancer: The value of MRI

Breast

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 306-315

  Cocquyt, V F ^a   Villeirs, G M ^b   Blondeel, Ph N ^b   Depypere, H T ^b   Mortier, M M ^b   Serreyn, R F ^a   Van Den Broecke, R ^a   Van Belle, S J P ^a  

^a Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery ^*  (Belgium)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTHRACYCLINE DERIVATIVE; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; DOCETAXEL; DOXORUBICIN; FLUOROURACIL; HORMONE RECEPTOR; METHOTREXATE; MITOMYCIN C; TAMOXIFEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST CARCINOMA; BREAST SURGERY; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION FUNCTION; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MASTECTOMY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; PREDICTION; PREOPERATIVE TREATMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TUMOR VOLUME;

EID: 0036700409     PISSN: 09609776     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1054/brst.2002.0450     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Brambilla C et al. Primary chemotherapy in operable breast cancer: eight-year experience at the Milan Cancer Institute. J Clin Oncol 998; 16: 93-100.
2. Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 2483-2493.
3. Kuerer H, Newman L, Smith T et al. Clinical course of breast cancer patients with complete pathologic primary tumor and axillary lymph node response to doxorubicin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 460-469.
4. Sapunar F. and Smith I. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Ann Med 2000; 32: 43-50.
5. Valero V, Hortobagyi G. Primary chemotherapy: a better overall therapeutic option for patients with breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1998; 9: 1151-1154.
6. Makris A, Powles T, Ashley S et al. A reduction in the requirements for mastectomy in a randomized trial of neoadjuvant chemoendocrine therapy in primary breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1998; 9: 1179-1184.
7. Silva O, Zurrida S. Breast Cancer. A Practical Guide. Kidlington, Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science, 2000; 162-172.
8. Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 2672-2685.
9. Harms S, Flamig D, Hesley K et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Magn Res Quart 1992; 8: 139-155.
10. Cross M, Harms S, Cheek H et al. New horizons in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer using magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Surg 1993; 166: 749-755.
11. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E. Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology 1999; 213: 881-888.
12. Esserman L, Hylton N, Yassa L et al. Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of breast cancer: evidence for improved preoperative staging. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 110-119.
13. Knopp M, Brix G, Junkermann H et al. MR mammography with pharmacokinetic mapping for monitoring of breast cancer treatment during neoadjuvant therapy. MRI Clin Am 1994; 2: 633-658.
14. Trecate G, Ceglia E, Stabile F et al. Locally advanced breast cancer treated with primary chemotherapy: comparison between magnetic resonance imaging and pathologic evaluation of residual disease. Tumnori 1999; 85: 220-228.
15. Vinnicombe S, David Mac Vicar A, Guy R et al. Primary breast cancer: mammographic changes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with pathologic correlation. Radiology 1996; 198: 333-340.
16. Fiorentino C, Berruti A, Bottini A et al. Accuracy of mammography and echography versus clinical palpation in the assessment of response to primary chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with operable disease. Breast Cancer Res Treatment 2001; 69: 143-151.
17. Davis P, Staiger M, Harris K et al. Breast cancer measurements with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treatment 1996; 37: 1-9.
18. Amano G, Noriaki 0, Tadashi I, Takanori I, Masakazu A, Susumu S. Correlation of three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging with precise histopathological map concerning carcinoma extension in the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treatment 2001; 60: 43-55.
19. Abraham D, Jones R, Jones S et al. Evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapeutic response of locally advanced breast cancer by magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 1996; 78: 91-100.
20. Rieber A, Zeitler H, Rosenthal H et al. MRI of breast cancer: influence of chemotherapy on sensitivity. Br J Radiol 1997; 70: 452-458.
21. Tsuboi N, Ogawa Y, Inomata T et al. Changes in the findings of dynamic MRI by preoperative CAF chemotherapy for patients with breast cancer of stage II and II: pathologic correlation. Oncol Rep 1999; 6: 727-732.
22. Mussurakis S, Buckley D, Horsman A. Dynamic MRI of invasive breast cancer: assessment of three region-of-Interest analysis methods. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1997; 21: 431-439.
23. Mussurakis S, Gibbs P, Horsman A. Primary breast abnormalities: selective pixel sampling on dynamic gadoliniumenhanced MR images. Radiology 1998; 206: 465-473.
24. Herrada J, Iyer R, Atkinson E et al. Relative value of physical examination, mammography, and breast sonography in evaluating the size of the primary tumor and regional lymph node metastases in women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 1997; 3: 1565-1569.
25. Esserman L, Kaplan E, Partridge S et al. MRI phenotype is associated with response to doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage III breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2001; 8: 549-559.
26. Weatherall P, Evans G, Metzger G, Saborrian M, Leitch A. MRI vs histologic measurement of breast cancer following chemotherapy: comparison with X-Ray mammography and palpation. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001; 13: 868-875.