Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.0 with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor 1.1 on MRI in Advanced Breast Cancer Response Evaluation to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

  • Jeh, Su Kyung (Department of Radiology, Hallym University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Sung Hun (Department of Radiology, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine) ;
  • Kang, Bong Joo (Department of Radiology, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine)
  • Published : 2013.02.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To compare the diagnostic performance in evaluating the response of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), between the response evaluation criteria in solid tumor (RECIST) 1.0 and RECIST 1.1, on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for advance breast cancer patients. Materials and Methods: Breast cancer patients, who underwent NAC between 2005 and 2010, were included. Both prechemotherapy and post-chemotherapy MRIs were performed within 1-4 weeks before and after NAC. Only the patients with subsequent surgery were included. The response to NAC was assessed by using RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1. Patients with a complete or partial response on MRI were considered as responders, and those with stable or progressive disease were considered as non-responders. Tumor necrosis > 50% on pathology was defined as responders and necrosis < 50% was defined as non-responders. The diagnostic accuracy of both RECIST 1.0 and RECIST 1.1 was analyzed and compared by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Results: Seventy-nine females (mean age 51.0 ${\pm}$ 9.3 years) were included. Pathology showed 45 responders and 34 nonresponders. There were 49 responders and 30 non-responders on RECIST 1.0, and in 55 patients, RECIST 1.0 results agreed with pathologic results (69.6%). RECIST 1.1 showed 52 responders and 27 non-responders. In 60 patients, RECIST 1.1 results were in accordance with pathology results (75.9%). The area under the ROC curve was 0.809 for RECIST 1.0 and 0.853 for RECIST 1.1. Conclusion: RECIST 1.1 showed better diagnostic performance than RECIST 1.0, although there was no statistically significant difference between the two.

Keywords

References

  1. Pickles, MD, Lowry, M, Manton, DJ, Gibbs, P, Turnbull, LW,Role of dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in monitoring early response of locally advanced breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Breast Cancer Res Treat, 91, 1, 1-10(2005) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-004-5819-2
  2. Loo, CE, Straver, ME, Rodenhuis, S, Muller, SH, Wesseling, J, Vrancken Peeters, MJ,Magnetic resonance imaging response monitoring of breast cancer during neoadjuvant chemotherapy: relevance of breast cancer subtype, J Clin Oncol, 29, 2, 660-666(2011) https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.31.1258
  3. Loo, CE, Teertstra, HJ, Rodenhuis, S, van de Vijver, MJ, Hannemann, J, Muller, SH,Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for prediction of breast cancer response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: initial results, AJR Am J Roentgenol, 191, 3, 1331-1338(2008) https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.3567
  4. Kumar, A, Kumar, R, Seenu, V, Gupta, SD, Chawla, M, Malhotra, A,The role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in evaluation of early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer, Eur Radiol, 19, 4, 1347-1357(2009) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1303-z
  5. Choi, JH, Lim, HI, Lee, SK, Kim, WW, Kim, SM, Cho, E,The role of PET CT to evaluate the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer: comparison with ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging, J Surg Oncol, 102, 5, 392-397(2010)
  6. Tan, MC, Al Mushawah, F, Gao, F, Aft, RL, Gillanders, WE, Eberlein, TJ,Predictors of complete pathological response after neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer, Am J Surg, 198, 6, 520-525(2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.06.004
  7. Koscielny, S, Tubiana, M, Lê, MG, Valleron, AJ, Mouriesse, H, Contesso, G,Breast cancer: relationship between the size of the primary tumour and the probability of metastatic dissemination, Br J Cancer, 49, 7, 709-715(1984) https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1984.112
  8. Lyou, CY, Cho, N, Kim, SM, Jang, M, Park, JS, Baek, SY,Computer-aided evaluation of breast MRI for the residual tumor extent and response monitoring in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Korean J Radiol, 12, 8, 34-43(2011) https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2011.12.1.34
  9. Martincich, L, Montemurro, F, De Rosa, G, Marra, V, Ponzone, R, Cirillo, S,Monitoring response to primary chemotherapy in breast cancer using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, Breast Cancer Res Treat, 83, 9, 67-76(2004) https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BREA.0000010700.11092.f4
  10. Lencioni, R, Llovet, JM,Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma, Semin Liver Dis, 30, 10, 52-60(2010) https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1247132
  11. Miller, AB, Hoogstraten, B, Staquet, M, Winkler, A,Reporting results of cancer treatment, Cancer, 47, 11, 207-214(1981) https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19810101)47:1<207::AID-CNCR2820470134>3.0.CO;2-6
  12. Therasse, P, Arbuck, SG, Eisenhauer, EA, Wanders, J, Kaplan, RS, Rubinstein, L,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, 92, 12, 205-216(2000) https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/92.3.205
  13. Lee, HY, Lee, KS, Hwang, HS, Lee, JW, Ahn, MJ, Park, K,Molecularly targeted therapy using bevacizumab for non-small cell lung cancer: a pilot study for the new CT response criteria, Korean J Radiol, 11, 13, 618-626(2010) https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2010.11.6.618
  14. Kang, H, Lee, HY, Lee, KS, Kim, JH,Imaging-based tumor treatment response evaluation: review of conventional, new, and emerging concepts, Korean J Radiol, 13, 14, 371-390(2012) https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2012.13.4.371
  15. Eisenhauer, EA, Therasse, P, Bogaerts, J, Schwartz, LH, Sargent, D, Ford, R,New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1), Eur J Cancer, 45, 15, 228-247(2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
  16. Wahl, RL, Jacene, H, Kasamon, Y, Lodge, MA,From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors, J Nucl Med, 50, 16, 122S-150S(2009) https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.057307
  17. van Persijn van Meerten, EL, Gelderblom, H, Bloem, JL,RECIST revised: implications for the radiologist. A review article on the modified RECIST guideline, Eur Radiol, 20, 17, 1456-1467(2010) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1685-y
  18. 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, 180, 18, 297-306(1995)
  19. 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, 71, 19, 82-88(2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.03.021
  20. Bogaerts, J, Ford, R, Sargent, D, Schwartz, LH, Rubinstein, L, Lacombe, D,Individual patient data analysis to assess modifications to the RECIST criteria, Eur J Cancer, 45, 20, 248-260(2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.027
  21. 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, 45, 21, 300-310(2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.11.010
  22. Schwartz, LH, Bogaerts, J, Ford, R, Shankar, L, Therasse, P, Gwyther, S,Evaluation of lymph nodes with RECIST 1.1, Eur J Cancer, 45, 22, 261-267(2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.028
  23. Steger, S, Franco, F, Sverzellati, N, Chiari, G, Colomer, R,3D Assessment of Lymph Nodes vs. RECIST 1.1, Acad Radiol, 18, 23, 391-394(2011) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2010.11.010

Cited by

  1. RECIST 1.1 compared with RECIST 1.0 in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma receiving vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy. vol.204, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.14.13236
  2. Meta-Analysis of Quantitative Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI for the Assessment of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer vol.85, pp.6, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1177/000313481908500630
  3. Feasibility of quantitative and volumetric enhancement measurement to assess tumor response in patients with breast cancer after early neoadjuvant chemotherapy vol.49, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060521991017