Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of Tumor Stiffness by Elastography Is Predictive for Pathologic Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Breast Cancer

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Breast elastography (EG), which can objectively evaluate tumor stiffness, has been useful for differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions. However, the value of EG for prediction of response to systemic therapy is poorly understood.

Methods

The baseline evaluations of EG in 55 patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were reviewed. We investigated the correlation between tumor stiffness and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Tumor stiffness was evaluated by the Tsukuba elasticity scoring system.

Results

The mean EG scores were significant lower for the clinical and pathologic complete response (pCR) groups than for the others. When we categorized patients into two groups according to tumor stiffness, 26 patients were assigned to the low EG group (soft, scores from 1 to 3) and 29 patients were assigned to the high EG group (hard, score 4 and 5). The low EG group had significantly higher clinical complete response and pCR rates than the high EG group (clinical complete response, low EG group 38 % vs. high EG group 10 %, P = 0.024; pCR, low EG group 50 % vs. high EG group 14 %, P = 0.003, respectively). Furthermore, multivariate analysis indicated that estrogen receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, and low EG (odds ratio 13.04, 95 % confidence interval 1.19–458.28, P = 0.035) were independent predictive factors of pCR.

Conclusions

Tumor stiffness evaluated by EG bears predictive potential for response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Stiffness evaluated by EG may be recognized as a clinically significant tumor characteristic, comparable to other data obtained by functional imaging techniques.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Itoh A, Ueno E, Tohno E, et al. Breast disease: clinical application of US elastography for diagnosis. Radiology. 2006;239:341–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sadigh G, Carlos RC, Neal CH, Dwamena BA. Ultrasonographic differentiation of malignant from benign breast lesions: a meta-analytic comparison of elasticity and BIRADS scoring. Breast Cancer Res Treat (in press).

  3. Gong X, Xu Q, Xu Z, Xiong P, Yan W, Chen Y. Real-time elastography for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;130:11–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Scaperrotta G, Ferranti C, Costa C, et al. Role of sonoelastography in non-palpable breast lesions. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:2381–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Levental KR, Yu H, Kass L, et al. Matrix crosslinking forces tumor progression by enhancing integrin signaling. Cell. 2009;139:891–906.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Butcher DT, Alliston T, Weaver VM. A tense situation: forcing tumour progression. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9:108–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Mamounas EP, et al. Recommendations from an international consensus conference on the current status and future of neoadjuvant systemic therapy in primary breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol (in press).

  8. Mauri D, Pavlidis N, Ioannidis JP. Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant systemic treatment in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:188–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gralow JR, Burstein HJ, Wood W, et al. Preoperative therapy in invasive breast cancer: pathologic assessment and systemic therapy issues in operable disease. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:814–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:778–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nishimura R, Osako T, Okumura Y, Hayashi M, Arima N. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Toi M, Nakamura S, Kuroi K, et al. Phase II study of preoperative sequential FEC and docetaxel predicts of pathological response and disease free survival. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;110:531–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Straver ME, Glas AM, Hannemann J, et al. The 70-gene signature as a response predictor for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;119:551–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gianni L, Zambetti M, Clark K, et al. Gene expression profiles in paraffin-embedded core biopsy tissue predict response to chemotherapy in women with locally advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7265–77.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Park SH, Moon WK, Cho N, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging: pretreatment prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Radiology. 2010;257:56–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Smith IC, Welch AE, Hutcheon AW, et al. Positron emission tomography using [(18)F]-fluorodeoxy-d-glucose to predict the pathologic response of breast cancer to primary chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:1676–88.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Fangberget A, Nilsen LB, Hole KH, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer–response evaluation and prediction of response to treatment using dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:1188–99.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Uematsu T, Kasami M, Yuen S. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: correlation between the baseline MR imaging findings and responses to therapy. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:2315–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Iacconi C, Giannelli M, Marini C, et al. The role of mean diffusivity (MD) as a predictive index of the response to chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer: a preliminary study. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:303–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kurosumi M, Akashi-Tanaka S, Akiyama F, et al. Histopathological criteria for assessment of therapeutic response in breast cancer (2007 version). Breast Cancer. 2008;15:5–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Buzdar AU, Ibrahim NK, Francis D, et al. Significantly higher pathologic complete remission rate after neoadjuvant therapy with trastuzumab, paclitaxel, and epirubicin chemotherapy: results of a randomized trial in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:3676–85.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Schrader J, Gordon-Walker TT, Aucott RL, et al. Matrix stiffness modulates proliferation, chemotherapeutic response, and dormancy in hepatocellular carcinoma cells. Hepatology. 2011;53:1192–205.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Hayashi M, Kai K, Okumura Y, et al. Shift in cytotoxic target from estrogen receptor–positive to estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer cells by trastuzumab in combination with taxane-based chemotherapy. Oncol Lett. 2011;2:303–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ulrich TA, de Juan Pardo EM, Kumar S. The mechanical rigidity of the extracellular matrix regulates the structure, motility, and proliferation of glioma cells. Cancer Res. 2009;69:4167–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Cho N, Moon WK, Chang JM, et al. Sonoelastographic lesion stiffness: preoperative predictor of the presence of an invasive focus in nonpalpable DCIS diagnosed at US-guided needle biopsy. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:1618–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N, Kim SJ. Breast mass evaluation: factors influencing the quality of US elastography. Radiology. 2011;259:59–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Iwase H. Current topics and perspectives on the use of aromatase inhibitors in the treatment of breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2008;15:278–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Li SP, Makris A, Beresford MJ, et al. Use of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging to predict survival in patients with primary breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Radiology. 2011;260:68–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kumar A, Kumar R, Seenu V, et al. The role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in evaluation of early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:1347–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rousseau C, Devillers A, Sagan C, et al. Monitoring of early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and III breast cancer by [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5366–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Dowsett M, Smith IE, Ebbs SR, et al. Short-term changes in Ki-67 during neoadjuvant treatment of primary breast cancer with anastrozole or tamoxifen alone or combined correlate with recurrence-free survival. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:951s–8s.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors thank M. Komi, K. Shimizu, Y. Sonoda, and Y. Azakami for their excellent technical support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan

    Mitsuhiro Hayashi MD, Yutaka Yamamoto MD, PhD, Mutsuko Ibusuki MD, PhD, Saori Fujiwara MD, Satoko Yamamoto MD, Saori Tomita MD, Masahiro Nakano MD, Keiichi Murakami MD & Hirotaka Iwase MD, PhD

  2. Department of Surgical Pathology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan

    Ken-ichi Iyama MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Mitsuhiro Hayashi MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yutaka Yamamoto MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mutsuko Ibusuki MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Saori Fujiwara MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Satoko Yamamoto MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Saori Tomita MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Masahiro Nakano MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Keiichi Murakami MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ken-ichi Iyama MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Hirotaka Iwase MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hirotaka Iwase MD, PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hayashi, M., Yamamoto, Y., Ibusuki, M. et al. Evaluation of Tumor Stiffness by Elastography Is Predictive for Pathologic Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Breast Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 19, 3042–3049 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2343-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2343-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation