Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging for assessing tumor response in patients with HER2-negative breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with molecular biomarker profile

Clinical Breast Cancer

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 110-118

  Kuzucan, Aida ^a   Chen, Jeon Hor ^a,b,c   Bahri, Shadfar ^a   Mehta, Rita S ^a   Carpenter, Philip M ^d   Fwu, Peter T ^a   Yu, Hon J ^a   Hsiang, David J B ^a   Lane, Karen T ^a   Butler, John A ^a   Feig, Stephen A ^a   Su, Min Ying ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b CHINA MEDICAL UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Taiwan)

^c CHINA MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Hormone receptors; Ki 67; Magnetic resonance imaging; Neoadjuvant chemotherapy; Pathologic complete response; Triple negative cancer

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; DOXORUBICIN; EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2; KI 67 ANTIGEN;

ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DRUG RESPONSE; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PHENOTYPE; PREDICTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR VOLUME;

EID: 84858974384     PISSN: 15268209     EISSN: 19380666     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2012.01.009     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Wolmark N, Wang J, Mamounas E, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer: nine-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2001; 30:96-102.
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; 15:2483-93. (Pubitemid 27289876)
3. Buchholz TA, Lehman CD, Harris JR, et al. Statement of the science concerning locoregional treatments after preoperative chemotherapy for breast cancer: a National Cancer Institute conference. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:791-7. (Pubitemid 351265334)
4. Bhargava R, Beriwal S, Dabbs DJ, et al. Immunohistochemical surrogate markers of breast cancer molecular classes predicts response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a single institutional experience with 359 cases. Cancer 2010; 116:1431-9.
5. Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L, et al. The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res 2007; 13:2329-34. (Pubitemid 46698581)
6. Straver ME, van Adrichem JC, Rutgers EJ, et al. Neoadjuvant systemic therapy in patients with operable primary breast cancer: more benefits than breast-conserving therapy [in Dutch]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2008; 152):2519-25.
7. Mersin H, Yildirim E, Berberoglu U, et al. The prognostic importance of triple negative breast carcinoma. Breast 2008; 17:341-6.
8. Moon HG, Han W, Lee JW, et al. Age and HER2 expression status affect MRI accuracy in predicting residual tumor extent after neo-adjuvant systemic treatment. Ann Oncol 2009; 20:636-41.
9. Partridge SC, Gibbs JE, Lu Y, et al. Accuracy of MR imaging for revealing residual breast cancer in patients who have undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179:1193-9. (Pubitemid 35204372)
10. Yeh E, Slanetz P, Kopans DB, et al. Prospective comparison of mammography, sonography, and MRI in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for palpable breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184:868-77. (Pubitemid 43899515)
11. Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Rody A. Preoperative (neoadjuvant) systemic treatment of breast cancer. Breast 2005; 14:576-81. (Pubitemid 41683583)
12. Orel S. Who should have breast magnetic resonance imaging evaluation? J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:703-11. (Pubitemid 351264382)
13. Chen JH, Feig B, Agrawal G, et al. MRI evaluation of pathological complete response and residual tumors in breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer 2008; 112:17-26.
14. Chen JH, Mehta RS, Carpenter PM, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in predicting pathological response of triple negative breast cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:5667-9.
15. Lee SH, Cho N, Kim SJ, et al. Correlation between high resolution dynamic MR features and prognostic factors in breast cancer. Korean J Radiol 2008; 9:10-8.
16. Ibrahim E, Al-Gahmi AM, Zeenelin AA, et al. Basal vs. luminal A breast cancer subtypes: a matched case-control study using estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER-2 as surrogate markers. Med Oncol 2009; 26:372-8.
17. Mehta RS. Dose-dense and/or metronomic schedules of specific chemotherapies consolidate the chemosensitivity of triple-negative breast cancer: a step toward reversing triple-negative paradox. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:3286-8; Author reply: 3288.
18. Perou CM, Sørlie T, Eisen MB, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2000; 406:747-52.
19. Sorlie T, Perous CM, Tibshirani R, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguishes tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001; 40:2667-75.
20. Slamon DJ, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S, et al. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N Engl J Med 2001; 344:783-92. (Pubitemid 32222155)
21. Dawood S, Broglio K, Gong Y, et al. Prognostic significance of HER2 status in women with inflammatory breast cancer. Cancer 2008; 112:1905-11. (Pubitemid 351574065)
22. Loo CE, Straver ME, Rodenhuis S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging response monitoring breast cancer during neoadjuvant chemotherapy: relevance of breast cancer subtype. J Clin Oncol 2011; 28:1-7.
23. Londero V, Bazzocchi M, Del Frate C, et al. Locally advanced breast cancer: comparison of mammography, sonography and MR imaging in evaluation of residual disease in women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Radiol 2004; 14:1371-9. (Pubitemid 39162217)
24. Wasser K, Klein SK, Junkermann H, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy of breast carcinomas: what post-therapeutic (preoperative) information is provided by quantitative dynamic MRI? [in German]. Radiologe 2007; 47:421-9. (Pubitemid 46902828)
25. Bhattacharyya M, Ryan D, Carpenter R, et al. Using MRI to plan breast-conserving surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2008; 98:289-93. (Pubitemid 351161258)
26. Akazawa K, Tamaki Y, Taguchi T, et al. Preoperative evaluation of residual tumor extent by three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast J 2006; 12:130-7.
27. Loibl S, von Minckwitz G, Raab G, et al. Surgical procedures after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in operable breast cancer: results of the GEPARDUO trial. Ann Surg Oncol 2006; 13:1434-42. (Pubitemid 44749654)
28. Bahri S, Chen JH, Mehta RS, et al. Residual breast cancer diagnosed by MRI in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy with and without bevacizumab. Ann Surg Oncol 2009; 16:1619-28.
29. Uematsu T, Kasami M, Yuen S. Triple-negative breast cancer: correlation between MR imaging and pathologic findings. Radiology 2009; 250:638-47.
30. Basu S, Chen W, Tchou J, et al. Comparison of triple-negative and estrogen receptor-positive/progesterone receptor-positive/HER2-negative breast carcinoma using quantitative fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose/positron emission tomography imaging parameters: a potentially useful method for disease characterization. Cancer 2008; 112:995-1000. (Pubitemid 351304582)
31. Chen JH, Agrawal G, Feig B, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: MRI features in 29 patients. Ann Oncol 2007; 18:2042-3. (Pubitemid 350286248)
32. Szabo BK, Aspelin P, Kristoffersen Wiberg M, et al. Invasive breast cancer: correlation of dynamic MR features with prognostic factors. Eur Radiol 2003; 13:2423-35.
33. Penault-Llorca F, Abrial C, Raoelfils I, et al. Changes and predictive and prognostic value of the mitotic index, Ki-67, cyclin D1, and cyclo-oxygenase-2 in 710 operable breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Oncologist 2008; 13:1235-45.
34. Gadiyaram VK, Kurian S, Abraham J, et al. Correlation of Ki67 and p53 expression with obesity and pattern of metastatic spread in triple-negative and Her2/neu+ breast cancer. ASCO Breast Cancer Symposium 2009:abstract 111. Available at: www.asco.org. Accessed: February 20, 2012.
35. Ghebeh H, Tulbah A, Mohammed S, et al. Expression of B7-H1 in breast cancer patients is strongly associated with high proliferative Ki-67-expressing tumor cells. Int J Cancer 2007; 121:751-8. (Pubitemid 47106203)
36. Wiesner FG, Magener A, Fasching PA, et al. Ki-67 as a prognostic molecular marker in routine clinical use in breast cancer patients. Breast 2009; 18:135-41.
37. Nishimura R, Osako T, Okumura Y, et al. Clinical significance of Ki-67 in neoadjuvant chemotherapy for primary breast cancer as a predictor for chemosensitivity and for prognosis. Breast Cancer 2010; 17:269-75.
38. Keam B, Im SA, Lee KH, et al. Ki-67 can be used for further classification of triple negative breast cancer into two subtypes with different response and prognosis. Breast Cancer Res 2011; 13:R22. [Epub ahead of print].
39. Jeh SK, Kim SH, Kim HS, et al. Correlation of the apparent diffusion coefficient value and dynamic magnetic resonance imaging findings with prognostic factors in invasive ductal carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 33:102-9.
40. Wasser K, Sinn HP, Fink C, et al. Accuracy of tumor size measurement in breast cancer using MRI is influenced by histological regression induced by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Radiol 2003; 13:1213-23. (Pubitemid 36790621)
41. Honkoop AH, Pinedo HM, De Jong JS, et al. Effects of chemotherapy on pathologic and biologic characteristics of locally advanced breast cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 1997; 107:211-8. (Pubitemid 27098173)
42. Fisher ER, Wang J, Bryant J, et al. Pathobiology of preoperative chemotherapy: findings from the national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel (NSABP) protocol B-18. Cancer 2002; 95:681-95. (Pubitemid 34845919)
43. Peintinger F, Kuerer HM, McGuire SE, et al. Residual specimen cellularity after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Br J Surg 2008; 95:433-7.
44. Buchholz TA, Hunt KK, Whitman GJ, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast carcinoma: multidisciplinary considerations of benefits and risks. Cancer 2003; 98:1150-60. (Pubitemid 37099899)
45. Denis F, Desbiez-Bourcier AV, Chapiron C, et al. Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging underestimates residual disease following neoadjuvant docetaxel based chemotherapy for breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2004; 30:1069-76. (Pubitemid 40267811)
46. Kwong MS, Chung GG, Horvath LJ, et al. Postchemotherapy MRI overestimates residual disease compared with histopathology in responders to neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced breast cancer. Cancer J 2006; 12:212-21. (Pubitemid 43894338)
47. Kim HJ, Im YH, Han BK, et al. Accuracy of MRI for estimating residual tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer: relation to response patterns on MRI. Acta Oncol 2007; 46:996-1003. (Pubitemid 47537188)