Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Critères de choix d’une chimiothérapie néoadjuvante

Selection criterions of neoadjuvant chemotherapy

  • Conference paper
Acquis et limites en sénologie / Assets and limits in breast diseases

  • 239 Accesses

Résumé

Différentes conférences de consensus et recommandations nationales et internationales ont tenté de définir les indications des traitements néoadjuvants des cancers du sein [1–4]. Nous aborderons ici essentiellement les indications et modalités de ces traitements en excluant une partie de la question des traitements antihormonaux néoadjuvants pour lesquels à ce jour le niveau de preuve d’intérêt reste moindre malgré un intérêt en recherche [1–3] clinique [5]. Les dernières recommandations pour la pratique clinique de Nice Sain-Paul-de-Vence ont permis d’établir trois indications qui sont [6] :

  • les tumeurs initialement inopérables d’emblée d’un point de vue carcinologique;

  • les tumeurs initialement opérables mais non accessibles à un traitement chirurgical conservateur d’emblée;

  • l’utilisation de l’approche néoadjuvante comme modèle de recherche clinique pour la personnalisation des traitements médicaux.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. Kaufmann M, Hortobagyi GN, Goldhirsch A et al. (2006) Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: an update. J Clin Oncol 24: 1940–1949

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Bear HD et al. (2007) Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: new perspectives 2006. Ann Oncol 18: 1927–1934

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Smith R et al. (2003) International expert panel on the use of primary (preoperative) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: review and recommendations. J Clin Oncol 21: 2600–2608

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. AROME (2011) Guidelines, minimal requirements and standard of cancer care around the Mediterranean Area: report from the Collaborative AROME (Association of Radiotherapy and Oncology of the Mediterranean Area) working parties. Crit Rev Oncol/Hematol 78: 1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chia YH, Ellis MJ, Ma CX (2010) Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in primary breast cancer: indications and use as a research tool. Br J Cancer 103:759–764

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ceugnart L, Coudert B, Dalenc F et al. (2011) RPC St Paul de Vence Les traitements néoadjuvants (hors cancer du sein inflammatoire). Oncologie

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dawood S, Merajver SD, Viens P et al. (2011) International expert panel on inflammatory breast cancer: consensus statement for standardized diagnosis and treatment. Ann Oncol 22: 515–523

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Costa SD, Loibl S, Kaufmann M et al. (2010) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy shows similar response in patients with inflammatory or locally advanced breast cancer when compared with operable breast cancer: a secondary analysis of the GeparTrio trial data. J Clin Oncol 28: 83–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rouzier R, Pusztai L, Delaloge S et al. (2005) Nomograms to predict pathologic complete response and metastasis-free survival after preoperative chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23: 8331–8339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rouzier R, Mathieu MC, Sideris L et al. (2004) Breast-conserving surgery after neoadjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy for large breast tumors. Cancer 101: 918–925

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yuen AR, Halsey J, Fisher GA et al. (1999) Phase I study of an antisense oligonucleotide to protein kinase C-alpha (ISIS 3521/CGP 64128A) in patients with cancer. Clin Cancer Res 5: 3357–3363

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Mamounas EP (2004) Tailoring loco-regional therapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: another step in the right direction. Ann Surg Oncol 11: 888–891

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Smith IE, Kotsori A (2010) Designing adjuvant treatment based on biological measurements in the neoadjuvant setting. Breast Cancer Res 12(Suppl 4): S16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gralow JR, Burstein HJ, Wood W et al. (2008) Preoperative therapy in invasive breast cancer: pathologic assessment and systemic therapy issues in operable disease. J Clin Oncol 26: 814–819

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Baselga J, Semiglazov V, van Dam P et al. (2009) Phase II randomized study of neoadjuvant everolimus plus letrozole compared with placebo plus letrozole in patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 27: 2630–2637

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Gianni L, Pienkowski T, Im YH et al. (2012) Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab in women with locally advanced, inflammatory, or early HER2-positive breast cancer (NeoSphere): a randomised multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 13: 25–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N et al. (1998) Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 16: 2672–2685

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Fisher ER, Wang J, Bryant J et al. (2002) Pathobiology of preoperative chemotherapy: findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel (NSABP) protocol B-18. Cancer 95: 681–695

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jacquillat C, Baillet F, Auclerc G et al. (1986) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy of breast cancer. Drugs Exper Clin Res 12: 147–152

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Jacquillat C, Baillet F, Auclerc G et al. (1984) Breast cancer: chemotherapy preceding locoregional treatment with extension of the indications for conservative treatment. Bull Cancer 71: 354–360

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Zucali R et al. (1995) Primary chemotherapy in surgically resectable breast cancer. Cancer J Clin 45: 227–243

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Mauriac L, MacGrogan G, Avril A et al. (1999) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast carcinoma larger than 3 cm: a unicentre randomized trial with a 124-month median follow-up. Institut Bergonie Bordeaux Groupe Sein (IBBGS). Ann Oncol 10: 47–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E et al. (1997) 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 15: 2483–2493

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Mauri D, Pavlidis N, Ioannidis JP (2005) Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant systemic treatment in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Instit 97: 188–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mieog JS, van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ (2007) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast cancer. Br J Surg 94: 1189–1200

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Scholl SM, Fourquet A, Asselain B et al. (1994) Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in premenopausal patients with tumours considered too large for breast conserving surgery: preliminary results of a randomised trial: S6. Eur J Cancer 30A: 645–652

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Makris A, Powles TJ, Ashley SE et al. (1998) A reduction in the requirements for mastectomy in a randomized trial of neoadjuvant chemoendocrine therapy in primary breast cancer. Ann Oncol 9: 1179–1184

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Fisher B (1999) From Halsted to prevention and beyond: advances in the management of breast cancer during the twentieth century. Eur J Cancer 35: 1963–1973

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ, Julien JP et al. (2001) Preoperative chemotherapy in primary operable breast cancer: results from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 10902. J Clin Oncol 19: 4224–4237

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gianni L, Baselga J, Eiermann W et al. (2009) Phase III trial evaluating the addition of paclitaxel to doxorubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil, as adjuvant or primary systemic therapy: European Cooperative Trial in Operable Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol 27: 2474–2481

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Pierga JY, Mouret E, Laurence V et al. (2003) Prognostic factors for survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in operable breast cancer. the role of clinical response. Eur J Cancer 39: 1089–1096

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sataloff DM, Mason BA, Prestipino AJ et al. (1995) Pathologic response to induction chemotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the breast: a determinant of outcome. J Am Coll Surg 180: 297–306

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Rastogi P, Buyse ME, Swain SM et al. (2011) Concurrent bevacizumab with a sequential regimen of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel and capecitabine as neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-locally advanced breast cancer: a phase II trial of the NSABP Foundation Research Group. Clin Breast Cancer 11: 228–234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Kuerer HM, Buzdar AU, Mittendorf EA et al. (2011) Biologic and immunologic effects of preoperative trastuzumab for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer 117: 39–47

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Chevallier B, Roche H, Olivier JP et al. (1993) Inflammatory breast cancer. Pilot study of intensive induction chemotherapy (FEC-HD) results in a high histologic response rate. Am J Clin Oncol 16: 223–228

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Honkoop AH, van Diest PJ, de Jong JS et al. (1998) Prognostic role of clinical, pathological and biological characteristics in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Br J Cancer 77: 621–626

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Rouzier R, Pusztai L, Garbay JR et al. (2006) Development and validation of nomograms for predicting residual tumor size and the probability of successful conservative surgery with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Cancer 107: 1459–1466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Gianni L, Zambetti M, Clark K et al. (2005) Gene expression profiles in paraffin-embedded core biopsy tissue predict response to chemotherapy in women with locally advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23: 7265–7277

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Heys SD, Hutcheon AW, Sarkar TK et al. (2002) Neoadjuvant docetaxel in breast cancer: 3-year survival results from the Aberdeen trial. Clin Breast Cancer 3(Suppl 2): S69–S74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Smith IC, Heys SD, Hutcheon AW et al. (2002) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: significantly enhanced response with docetaxel. J Clin Oncol 20: 1456–1466

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. von Minckwitz G, Kummel S, Vogel P et al. (2008) Neoadjuvant vinorelbine-capecitabine versus docetaxel-doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide in early nonresponsive breast cancer: phase III randomized GeparTrio trial. J Natl Cancer Instit 100: 542–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Liedtke C, Mazouni C, Hess KR et al. (2008) Response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 26: 1275–1281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Untch M, Fasching PA, Konecny GE et al. (2011) Pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus trastuzumab predicts favorable survival in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-overexpressing breast cancer: results from the TECHNO trial of the AGO and GBG study groups. J Clin Oncol 29: 3351–3357

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU et al. (2012) Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol 30: 1796–1804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Prowell TM, Pazdur R (2012) Pathological complete response and accelerated drug approval in early breast cancer. New Engl J Med 366: 2438–2441

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Bear HD (2007) Reaping the harvest from neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer: reducing morbidity with sentinel lymph node biopsy. J Surg Oncol 95: 527–529

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD et al. (2008) Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol 26: 778–785

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Hutcheon AW, Heys SD, Sarkar TK (2003) Neoadjuvant docetaxel in locally advanced breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 79(Suppl 1): S19–S24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Buzdar AU, Singletary SE, Theriault RL et al. (1999) Prospective evaluation of paclitaxel versus combination chemotherapy with fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 17: 3412–3417

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Frasci G, D’Aiuto G, Comella P et al. (2010) Preoperative weekly cisplatin, epirubicin, and paclitaxel (PET) improves prognosis in locally advanced breast cancer patients: an update of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group (SICOG) randomised trial 9908. Ann Oncol 21: 707–716

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Frasci G, D’Aiuto G, Comella P et al. (2006) Weekly cisplatin, epirubicin, and paclitaxel with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support vs triweekly epirubicin and paclitaxel in locally advanced breast cancer: final analysis of a sicog phase III study. Br J Cancer 95: 1005–1012

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Evans TR, Yellowlees A, Foster E et al. (2005) Phase III randomized trial of doxorubicin and docetaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as primary medical therapy in women with breast cancer: an anglo-celtic cooperative oncology group study. J Clin Oncol 23: 2988–2995

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Therasse P, Mauriac L, Welnicka-Jaskiewicz M et al. (2003) Final results of a randomized phase III trial comparing cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil with a dose-intensified epirubicin and cyclophosphamide + filgrastim as neoadjuvant treatment in locally advanced breast cancer: an EORTC-NCIC-SAKK multicenter study. J Clin Oncol 21: 843–850

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Untch M, Mobus V, Kuhn W et al. (2009) Intensive dose-dense compared with conventionally scheduled preoperative chemotherapy for high-risk primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 27: 2938–2945

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Smith IE, A’Hern RP, Coombes GA et al. (2004) A novel continuous infusional 5-fluorouracilbased chemotherapy regimen compared with conventional chemotherapy in the neo-adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: 5 year results of the TOPIC trial. Ann Oncol 15: 751–758

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Jackisch C, von Minckwitz G, Eidtmann H et al. (2002) Dose-dense biweekly doxorubicin/docetaxel versus sequential neoadjuvant chemotherapy with doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide/docetaxel in operable breast cancer: second interim analysis. Clin Breast Cancer 3: 276–280

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. von Minckwitz G, Kummel S, Vogel P et al. (2008) Intensified neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early-responding breast cancer: phase III randomized GeparTrio study. J Natl Cancer Instit 100: 552–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. von Minckwitz G, Rezai M, Loibl S et al. (2010) Capecitabine in addition to anthracycline-and taxane-based neoadjuvant treatment in patients with primary breast cancer: phase III GeparQuattro study. J Clin Oncol 28: 2015–2023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Bear HD (1998) Indications for neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Sem Oncol 25: 3–12

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Buzdar AU, Valero V, Ibrahim NK et al. (2007) Neoadjuvant therapy with paclitaxel followed by 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy and concurrent trastuzumab in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive operable breast cancer: an update of the initial randomized study population and data of additional patients treated with the same regimen. Clin Cancer Res 13: 228–233

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Shimizu C, Masuda N, Yoshimura K et al. (2009) Long-term outcome and pattern of relapse after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive primary breast cancer. Japan J Clin Oncol 39: 484–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Pierga JY, Delaloge S, Espie M et al. (2010) A multicenter randomized phase II study of sequential epirubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel with or without celecoxib or trastuzumab according to HER2 status, as primary chemotherapy for localized invasive breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 122: 429–437

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Gianni L, Eiermann W, Semiglazov V et al. (2010) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab followed by adjuvant trastuzumab versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced breast cancer (the NOAH trial): a randomised controlled superiority trial with a parallel HER2-negative cohort. Lancet 375: 377–384

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Untch M, Rezai M, Loibl S et al. (2010) Neoadjuvant treatment with trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer: results from the GeparQuattro study. J Clin Oncol 28: 2024–2031

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Untch M, Loibl S, Bischoff J et al. (2010) Lapatinib vs trastuzumab in Combination with Neoadjuvant Anthracycline-Taxane-Based chemotherapy: Primary Efficacy Endpoint Analysis of The GEPARQUINTO study (GBG 44) Breast Cancer Res Treat SABCS (Suppl) Abstract S3-1

    Google Scholar 

  66. Guiu S, Liegard M, Favier L et al. (2011) Long-term follow-up of HER2-overexpressing stage II or III breast cancer treated by anthracycline-free neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 22: 321–328

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Harris LN, You F, Schnitt SJ et al. (2007) Predictors of resistance to preoperative trastuzumab and vinorelbine for HER2-positive early breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 13: 1198–1207

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Wildiers H, Neven P, Christiaens MR et al. (2011) Neoadjuvant capecitabine and docetaxel (plus trastuzumab): an effective non-anthracycline-based chemotherapy regimen for patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol 22: 588–594

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Baselga J, Bradbury I, Eidtmann H et al. (2010) First Results of the NeoALTTO Trial (BIG 01-06/EGF 106903): A Phase III, Randomized, Open Label, Neoadjuvant Study of Lapatinib, Trastuzumab, and Their Combination Plus Paclitaxel in Women with HER2-Positive Primary Breast Cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat SABCS (Suppl): Abstract S3-3

    Google Scholar 

  70. Gianni L, Pienkowski T, Im Y-H et al. (2010) Neoadjuvant Pertuzumab (P) and Trastuzumab (H): Antitumor and Safety Analysis of a Randomized Phase II Study (‘NeoSphere’). Breast Cancer Res Treat SABCS (Suppl): Abstract S3-2

    Google Scholar 

  71. Muller C, Caputo A, Schumacher M et al. (2007) Clinical response by palpation during primary systemic therapy with four dose-dense cycles doxorubicin and docetaxel in patients with operable breast cancer: further results from a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer 43: 1654–1661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Beresford M, Padhani AR, Goh V et al. (2005) Imaging breast cancer response during neoadjuvant systemic therapy. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 5: 893–905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Schott AF, Roubidoux MA, Helvie MA et al. (2005) Clinical and radiologic assessments to predict breast cancer pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 92: 231–238

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B et al. (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 46: 1296–1316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Uematsu T, Kasami M, Yuen S (2010) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: correlation between the baseline MR imaging findings and responses to therapy. Eur Radiol 20: 2315–2322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Cheung YC, Chen SC, Su MY et al. (2003) Monitoring the size and response of locally advanced breast cancers to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (weekly paclitaxel and epirubicin) with serial enhanced MRI. Breast Cancer Res Treat 78: 51–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Partridge SC, Vanantwerp RK, Doot RK et al. (2010) Association between serial dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and dynamic 18F-FDG PET measures in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. J Magn Reson Imag 32: 1124–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Loo CE, Teertstra HJ, Rodenhuis S et al. (2008) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for prediction of breast cancer response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: initial results. Am J Roentgenol 191: 1331–1338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Gilles R, Guinebretiere JM, Toussaint C et al. (1994) Locally advanced breast cancer: contrastenhanced subtraction MR imaging of response to preoperative chemotherapy. Radiology 191: 633–638

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Woodhams R, Kakita S, Hata H et al. (2010) Identification of residual breast carcinoma following neoadjuvant chemotherapy: diffusion-weighted imaging—comparison with contrast-enhanced MR imaging and pathologic findings. Radiology 254: 357–366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Nilsen L, Fangberget A, Geier O et al. (2010) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for pretreatment prediction and monitoring of treatment response of patients with locally advanced breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Acta Oncol 49: 354–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Koolen BB, Vrancken Peeters MJ, Aukema TS et al. (2011) 18F-FDG PET/CT as a staging procedure in primary stage II and III breast cancer: comparison with conventional imaging techniques. Breast Cancer Res Treat 131: 117–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Kolesnikov-Gauthier H, Vanlemmens L, Baranzelli MC et al. (2012) Predictive value of neoadjuvant chemotherapy failure in breast cancer using FDG-PET after the first course. Breast Cancer Res Treat 131: 517–525

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Espie M et al. (2011) Early monitoring of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer with 18F-FDG PET/CT: defining a clinical aim. Eur J Nucl Med Molecul Imag 38: 419–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Berriolo-Riedinger A, Touzery C, Riedinger JM et al. (2007) [18F]FDG-PET predicts complete pathological response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Molecul Imag 34: 1915–1924

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Wang Y, Zhang C, Liu J et al. (2012) Is 18F-FDG PET accurate to predict neoadjuvant therapy response in breast cancer? A meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 131: 357–369

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Tafra L (2007) Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and Mammography (PEM) for breast cancer: importance to surgeons. Ann Surg Oncol 14: 3–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Park SH, Moon WK, Cho N et al. (2012) Comparison of diffusion-weighted MR imaging and FDG PET/CT to predict pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Eur Radiol 22: 18–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Moretti JL et al. (2011) Correlation of high 18F-FDG uptake to clinical, pathological and biological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Molecul Imag 38: 426–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Keam B, Im SA, Koh Y et al. (2011) Early metabolic response using FDG PET/CT and molecular phenotypes of breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. BMC Cancer 11: 452

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Prat A, Perou CM (2011) Deconstructing the molecular portraits of breast cancer. Molecular oncology 5: 5–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Rouzier R, Perou CM, Symmans WF et al. (2005) Breast cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 11: 5678–5685

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Penault-Llorca F, Cayre A, Bouchet Mishellany F et al. (2003) Induction chemotherapy for breast carcinoma: predictive markers and relation with outcome. Int J Oncol 22: 1319–1325

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Rouzier R, Coutant C, Incitti R et al. (2009) Breast cancer: nomograms to predict pathologic response after preoperative chemotherapy. The Lebanese Med J (J Med Libanais) 57: 89–92

    Google Scholar 

  95. von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Nuesch E et al. (2011) Impact of treatment characteristics on response of different breast cancer phenotypes: pooled analysis of the German neo-adjuvant chemotherapy trials. Breast Cancer Res Treat 125: 145–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie Pierre et Marie Curie, 75005, Paris, France

    J. Gligorov, A. Fajac, M. Antoine, K. Kerrou, I. Thomassin, R. Rouzier, J.-P. Lotz, J.-F. Bernaudin & S. Uzan

Authors
  1. J. Gligorov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Fajac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Antoine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. Kerrou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. I. Thomassin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Rouzier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. J.-P. Lotz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. J.-F. Bernaudin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. S. Uzan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag France, Paris

About this paper

Cite this paper

Gligorov, J. et al. (2013). Critères de choix d’une chimiothérapie néoadjuvante. In: Acquis et limites en sénologie / Assets and limits in breast diseases. Springer, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-8178-0396-8_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-8178-0396-8_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Paris

  • Print ISBN: 978-2-8178-0395-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-2-8178-0396-8

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation