Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

MRI volume measurements compared with the RECIST 1.1 for evaluating the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for mass-type lesions

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of volumetric (3D) measurements with that of unidimensional (1D) measurements by response evaluation criteria in solid tumors 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) in patients with breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Methods

The study included 48 patients with breast cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging was performed before the first cycle of chemotherapy and after the completion of the planned chemotherapy. The longest diameter and volume of each target lesion were measured using a TeraRecon Aquarius workstation (San Mateo, CA). Response was assessed both by using the RECIST 1.1 and volumetric criteria. Histologic response was assessed using the Sataloff criteria. The agreements between the two measures and the histologic response were analyzed statistically.

Results

In monitoring the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the 1D and 3D measurements showed “good agreement” (κ = 0.610) for the treatment response categories and “moderate agreement” (κ = 0.565) for the responder/non-responder categories. Disagreement was observed in 9 out of 48 comparisons (18.75 %). The percent agreement of the 1D measurement of residual lesions (79.17 %) with the pathology was higher than that by volumetric measurement (70.83 %), but there was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.35). Both the 1D (rho = 0.67, p < 0.0001) and 3D measurements (rho = 0.52, p < 0.0001) showed a moderate degree of linear correlation with the pathologic diameter of residual lesions.

Conclusion

There was generally good agreement between the 1D and 3D measurements and moderate predictive value using either approach for predicting pathological response.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Smith R, Valero V, Gianni L, Eiermann W, et al. International expert panel on the use of primary (preoperative) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: review and recommendations. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2600–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 

  3. Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E, Wieand S, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, 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(7):2483–93.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N, Mamounas E, Brown A, Fisher ER, et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(8):2672–85.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wolmark N, Wang J, Mamounas E, Bryant J, Fisher B. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bear HD, Anderson S, Brown A, Smith R, Mamounas EP, Fisher B, et al. The effect on tumor response of adding sequential preoperative docetaxel to preoperative doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: preliminary results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:4165–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, Geyer CE, Kahlenberg MS, Robidoux A, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(5):778–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Symmans WF, Peintinger F, Hatzis C, Rajan R, Kuerer H, Valero V, et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(28):4414–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jeruss JS, Mittendorf EA, Tucker SL, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Buchholz TA, Sahin AA, et al. Combined use of clinical and pathologic staging variables to define outcomes for breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(2):246–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Padhani AR, Hayes C, Assersohn L, Powles T, Makris A, Suckling J, et al. Prediction of clinicopathologic response of breast cancer to primary chemotherapy at contrast-enhanced MR imaging: initial clinical results. Radiology. 2006;239:361–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Balu-Maestro C, Chapellier C, Bleuse A, Chanalet I, Chauvel C, Largillier R. Imaging in evaluation of response to neoadjuvant breast cancer treatment benefits of MRI. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2002;72(2):145–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rieber A, Brambs HJ, Gabelmann A, Heilmann V, Kreienberg R, Kühn T. Breast MRI for monitoring response of primary breast cancer to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Radiol. 2002;12(7):1711–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, 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(3):205–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Therasse P, Eisenhauer EA, Verweij J. RECIST revisited: a review of validation studies on tumour assessment. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42:1031–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–47.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bogaerts J, Ford R, Sargent D, Schwartz LH, Rubinstein L, Lacombe D, et al. Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:248–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Moskowitz CS, Jia X, Schwartz LH, Gönen M. A simulation study to evaluate the impact of the number of lesions measured on response assessment. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:300–10.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schwartz LH, Bogaerts J, Ford R, Shankar L, Therasse P, Gwyther S, et al. Evaluation of lymph nodes with RECIST 1.1. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:261–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Suzuki C, Jacobsson H, Hatschek T, Torkzad MR, Bodén K, Eriksson-Alm Y, et al. Radiologic measurements of tumor response to treatment: practical approaches and limitations. Radiographics. 2008;28:329–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sataloff DM, Mason BA, Prestipino AJ, Seinige UL, Lieber CP, Baloch Z. Pathologic response to induction chemotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the breast: a determinant of outcome. J Am Coll Surg. 1995;180(3):297–306.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tran LN, Brown MS, Goldin JG, Yan X, Pais RC, McNitt-Gray MF, et al. Comparison of treatment response classifications between unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric measurements of metastatic lung lesions on chest computed tomography. Acad Radiol. 2004;11:1355–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Warren KE, Patronas N, Aikin AA, Albert PS, Balis FM. Comparison of one-, two- and three-dimensional measurements of childhood brain tumours. J Nat Cancer Inst. 2001;93:1401–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Sze G, Mehta MP, Schutlz CJ, Ford JM, Roa WH, Leibenhaut M, et al. Radiologic response evaluation of brain metastases: unidimensional World Health Organization (WHO) response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) vs bidimensional or 3-dimensional criteria. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001; 20:59 [abstr 234].

    Google Scholar 

  24. Galanis E, Maurer MJ, Ballman KV, O’Fallon JR, Sykora R, Castillo R, et al. Validation of neuroradiologic response assessment in gliomas: RECIST (1D) versus 2D measurements versus computer-assisted tumour area versus volume. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003; 22:106 [abstr 423].

    Google Scholar 

  25. Shah G, Kesari S, Xu R, Henson J, Batchelor T, Hochberg F, Oneill A, et al. Comparison of 1D, 2D, 3D and volumetric parameters in measuring tumour response in high-grade gliomas in adults. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004; 23:112 [abstr 1523].

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sohaib SA, Turner B, Hanson JA, Farquharson M, Oliver RT, Reznek RH. CT assessment of tumour response to treatment: comparison of linear, cross-sectional and volumetric measures of tumour size. Br J Radiol. 2000;73:1178–84.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Sebastian S, Fabio F, Sverzellati N, Chiari G, Colomer R. 3D assessment of Lymph nodes versus RECIST 1.1. Acad Radiol. 2011;18(3):391–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Galanis E, Buckner JC, Maurer MJ, Sykora R, Castillo R, Ballman KV, et al. Validation of neuroradiologic response assessment in gliomas: measurement by RECIST, two-dimensional, computer-assisted tumor area, and computer-assisted tumor volume methods. Neuro Oncol. 2006;8(2):156–65.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Shah GD, Kesari S, Xu R, Batchelor TT, O’Neill AM, Hochberg FH, et al. Comparison of linear and volumetric criteria in assessing tumor response in adult high-grade gliomas. Neuro Oncol. 2006;8(1):38–46.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Marten K, Auer F, Schmidt S, Kohl G, Rummeny EJ, Engelke C. Inadequacy of manual measurements compared to automated CT volumetry in assessment of treatment response of pulmonary metastases using RECIST criteria. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(4):781–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lyou CY, Cho N, Kim SM, Jang M, Park JS, Baek SY, et al. Computer-aided evaluation of breast MRI for the residual tumor extent and response monitoring in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Korean J Radiol. 2011;12(1):34–43.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Alderliesten T, Schlief A, Peterse J, Loo C, Teertstra H, Muller S, et al. Validation of semiautomatic measurement of the extent of breast tumors using contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol. 2007;42(1):42–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Partridge SC, Gibbs JE, Lu Y, Esserman LJ, Tripathy D, Wolverton DS, et al. MRI measurements of breast tumor volume predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and recurrence-free survival. Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:1774–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Martincich L, Montemurro F, De Rosa G, Marra V, Ponzone R, Cirillo S, et al. Monitoring response to primary chemotherapy in breast cancer using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004;83(1):67–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lorenzon M, Zuiani C, Londero V, Linda A, Furlan A, Bazzocchi M. Assessment of breast cancer response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: is volumetric MRI a reliable tool? Eur J Radiol. 2009;71(1):82–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rieber A, Zeitler H, Rosenthal H, Görich J, Kreienberg R, Brambs HJ, et al. MRI of breast cancer: influence of chemotherapy on sensitivity. Br J Radiol. 1997;70:452–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Wasser K, Sinn HP, Fink C, Klein SK, Junkermann H, Lüdemann HP, 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Partridge SC, Gibbs JE, Lu Y, Esserman LJ, Sudilovsky D, Hylton NM. Accuracy of MR imaging for revealing residual breast cancer in patients who have undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179(5):1193–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, St. Vincent’s Hospital, The Catholic Unversity of Korea, Seoul, Korea

    Yeong Yi An

  2. Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary’ Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 505 Banpo-dong, Seocho-Gu, Seoul, 137-701, Korea

    Sung Hun Kim & Bong Joo Kang

  3. Department of Hospital Pathology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

    A. Won Lee

  4. Department of Surgery, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

    Byung Joo Song

Authors
  1. Yeong Yi An
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sung Hun Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bong Joo Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Won Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Byung Joo Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sung Hun Kim.

About this article

Cite this article

An, Y.Y., Kim, S.H., Kang, B.J. et al. MRI volume measurements compared with the RECIST 1.1 for evaluating the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for mass-type lesions. Breast Cancer 21, 316–324 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-012-0388-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-012-0388-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation