|
|
|
| Shear-wave elastography for the evaluation of residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy |
| MA Yu-feng, ZHANG Xin, ZHANG Wei, LIU Hong-Shu |
| Department of Functional Exam, General Hospital of Fuxin Mining Industry Group, Fuxin Liaoning 123000, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Objective: To elucidate the evaluation of shear-wave elastography(SWE) in the residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy(NAC). Methods: 66 breast cancer patients receiving NAC were consecutively included. The means and maximum stiffness after NAC treatment were assessed by SWE. Correlations between the stiffness and pathological response quantized by residual cancer burden(RCB) were determined. Pathological complete response(pCR) was recorded and considered as gold standard. Diagnostic tests of the stiffness value evaluated by SWE were performed. Results: Correlations between the stiffness and pathological response were significantly positive. The maximum stiffness had significantly better overall diagnostic performance than mean stiffness regarding evaluating pCR, and the difference of diagnostic performance between maximum and mean stiffness was significant(P<0.01). Conclusion: The performance of maximum stiffness for evaluating the residual lesion of breast cancer after NAC is favorable, SWE may facilitate the personalizing treatment of breast cancer.
|
|
Received: 07 August 2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1]Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: The ctneobc pooled analysis[J]. Lancet, 2014, 384(9938): 164-172.
[2]Parekh T, Dodwell D, Sharma N, et al. Radiological and pathological predictors of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: A brief literature review[J]. Pathobiology, 2015, 82(3-4): 124-132.
[3]Youk JH, Gweon HM, Son EJ. Shear-wave elastography in breast ultrasonography: The state of the art [J]. Ultrasonography, 2017, 36(4): 300-309.
[4]Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS, et al. Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: Highlights of the st gallen international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2013[J]. Ann Oncol, 2013, 24(9): 2206-2223.
[5]Symmans WF, Peintinger F, Hatzis C, et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2007, 25(28): 4414-4422.
[6]Velaei K, Samadi N, Barazvan B, et al. Tumor microenvironment-mediated chemoresistance in breast cancer[J]. Breast, 2016, 30: 92-100.
[7]Giussani M, Merlino G, Cappelletti V, et al. Tumor-extracellular matrix interactions: Identification of tools associated with breast cancer progression[J]. Semin Cancer Biol, 2015, 35: 3-10.
[8]Oskarsson T. Extracellular matrix components in breast cancer progression and metastasis[J]. Breast, 2013, 22(Suppl 2): S66-72.
[9]Ma Y, Zhang S, Zang L, et al. Combination of shear wave elastography and ki-67 index as a novel predictive modality for the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with invasive breast cancer[J]. Eur J Cancer, 2016, 69: 86-101.
[10]Wei SC, Fattet L, Tsai JH, et al. Matrix stiffness drives epithelial-mesenchymal transition and tumour metastasis through a twist1-g3bp2 mechanotransduction pathway[J]. Nat Cell Biol, 2015, 17(5): 678-688.
[11]Fischer KR, Durrans A, Lee S, et al. Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition is not required for lung metastasis but contributes to chemoresistance[J]. Nature, 2015, 527(7579): 472-476.
[12]Zheng X, Carstens JL, Kim J, et al. Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition is dispensable for metastasis but induces chemoresistance in pancreatic cancer[J]. Nature, 2015, 527(7579): 525-530.
[13]Ma Y, Zhang S, Li J, et al. Comparison of strain and shear-wave ultrasonic elastography in predicting the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancers[J]. Eur Radiol, 2017, 27(6): 2282-2291.
[14]Zhu Q, DeFusco PA, Ricci A Jr., et al. Breast cancer: Assessing response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy by using us-guided near-infrared tomography[J]. Radiology, 2013, 266(2): 433-442. |
|
|
|
2018, Vol. 29 
