Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Change in sonographic brightness can predict pathological response of triple-negative breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy

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

Abstract

Introduction

Ultrasound (US) is conventionally performed to determine effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) on breast cancer. In patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), higher pathological complete response (pCR) predicts the most favorable survival outcome. We aimed to predict pCR to NAC using echogenicity changes in US region of interest (ROI) in patients with TNBC.

Methods and materials

We retrospectively determined clinicopathological characteristics of 52 patients with primary TNBC who underwent NAC. Changes in echogenicity for pCR and non-pCR patients were calculated from ratios of tumor to fat (T/F) in their ROIs, before and after NAC, as [T/F After/T/F Before] and [T/F After − T/F Before].

Results

Of the 52 patients (median age: 52 years; range 26–77 years), 20 (38.5%) achieved pCR, which was significantly associated with change in ROI ratio (P < 0.01). The cut-off values for ROI ratio and ROI difference were 0.8 and 0.3. Sensitivity and specificity were 73.7 and 81.8% for ROI ratio, and 70.0 and 81.3% for ROI difference. Area under the curves (AUCs) for ROI ratio and ROI difference were 0.80 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67–0.92] and 0.78 (95% CI 0.64–0.92), respectively.

Conclusion

Quantification of echogenic changes by converting absolute values of tumor and fat regions can predict pCR and individual differences between tumors after NAC in patients with TNBC.

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
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Killelea BK, Yang VQ, Mougalian S, Horowitz NR, Pusztai L, Chagpar AB, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer increases the rate of breast conservation: results from the National Cancer Database. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220:1063–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Mamounas E, Cameron D, Carey L, Cristofanilli M, 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. 2012;19:1508–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bear HD, Anderson S, Smith RE, Geyer CE Jr, Mamounas EP, Fisher B, et al. Sequential preoperative or postoperative docetaxel added to preoperative doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide for operable breast cancer: National surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2019–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, Mehta K, Costantino JP, Wolmark N, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384:164–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dialani V, Chadashvili T, Slanetz PJ. Role of imaging in neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:1416–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gilles R, Guinebretiere JM, Toussaint C, Spielman M, Rietjens M, Petit JY, et al. Locally advanced breast cancer: contrast-enhanced subtraction MR imaging of response to preoperative chemotherapy. Radiology. 1994;191:633–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Segara D, Krop IE, Garber JE, Winer E, Harris L, Bellon JR, et al. Does MRI predict pathologic tumor response in women with breast cancer undergoing preoperative chemotherapy? J Surg Oncol. 2007;96:474–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Stucky CC, McLaughlin SA, Dueck AC, Gray RJ, Giurescu ME, Carpenter SG, et al. Does magnetic resonance imaging accurately predict residual disease in breast cancer? Am J Surg. 2009;198:547–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Li YL, Zhang XP, Li J, Cao K, Cui Y, Li XT, et al. MRI in diagnosis of pathological complete response in breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:242–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Parekh T, Dodwell D, Sharma N, Shaaban AM. Radiological and Pathological Predictors of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: a brief literature review. Pathobiology. 2015;82:124–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG, Dowsett M, McShane LM, Allison KH, et al. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American society of clinical oncology/college of American pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3997–4013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Allred DC, Harvey JM, Berardo M, Clark GM. Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer by immunohistochemical analysis. Mod Pathol. 1998;11:155–68.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Alam SK, Feleppa EJ, Rondeau M, Kalisz A, Garra BS. Ultrasonic multi-feature analysis procedure for computer-aided diagnosis of solid breast lesions. Ultrason Imaging. 2011;33:17–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sadeghi-Naini A, Papanicolau N, Falou O, Zubovits J, Dent R, Verma S, et al. Quantitative ultrasound evaluation of tumor cell death response in locally advanced breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:2163–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Banihashemi B, Vlad R, Debeljevic B, Giles A, Kolios MC, Czarnota GJ. Ultrasound imaging of apoptosis in tumor response: novel preclinical monitoring of photodynamic therapy effects. Cancer Res. 2008;68:8590–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Smith IC, Heys SD, Hutcheon AW, Miller ID, Payne S, Gilbert FJ, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: significantly enhanced response with docetaxel. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:1456–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. von Minckwitz G, Blohmer JU, Costa SD, Denkert C, Eidtmann H, Eiermann W, et al. Response-guided neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3623–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Marinovich ML, Houssami N, Macaskill P, von Minckwitz G, Blohmer JU, Irwig L. Accuracy of ultrasound for predicting pathologic response during neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Int J Cancer. 2015;136:2730–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Segel MC, Paulus DD, Hortobagyi GN. Advanced primary breast cancer: assessment at mammography of response to induction chemotherapy. Radiology. 1988;169:49–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Helvie MA, Joynt LK, Cody RL, Pierce LJ, Adler DD, Merajver SD. Locally advanced breast carcinoma: accuracy of mammography versus clinical examination in the prediction of residual disease after chemotherapy. Radiology. 1996;198:327–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Keune JD, Jeffe DB, Schootman M, Hoffman A, Gillanders WE, Aft RL. Accuracy of ultrasonography and mammography in predicting pathologic response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2010;199:477–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, St. Luke’s International Hospital, 9-1 Akashi-cho, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-8560, Japan

    Naoko Matsuda, Kumiko Kida & Hideko Yamauchi

  2. Center for Clinical Epidemiology, St. Luke’s Life Science Institute, Tokyo, Japan

    Sachiko Ohde

  3. Department of Pathology, St. Luke’s Life Science Institute, Tokyo, Japan

    Koyu Suzuki

  4. Division of Breast Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Showa University, Tokyo, Japan

    Seigo Nakamura

  5. Department of Radiology, St. Luke’s International Hospital, Tokyo, Japan

    Hiroko Tsunoda

Authors
  1. Naoko Matsuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kumiko Kida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sachiko Ohde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Koyu Suzuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hideko Yamauchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Seigo Nakamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hiroko Tsunoda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naoko Matsuda.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Matsuda, N., Kida, K., Ohde, S. et al. Change in sonographic brightness can predict pathological response of triple-negative breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer 25, 43–49 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-017-0782-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-017-0782-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation