Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2013.14.1.13

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)
Publication Information
Korean Journal of Radiology / v.14, no.1, 2013 , pp. 13-20 More about this Journal
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
Breast neoplasm; Chemotherapy; Magnetic resonance imaging; Response evaluation criteria in solid tumor;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 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)
2 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)   DOI
3 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)   DOI
4 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)   DOI
5 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)   DOI
6 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)   DOI
7 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)   DOI
8 Lencioni, R, Llovet, JM,Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma, Semin Liver Dis, 30, 10, 52-60(2010)   DOI
9 Miller, AB, Hoogstraten, B, Staquet, M, Winkler, A,Reporting results of cancer treatment, Cancer, 47, 11, 207-214(1981)   DOI
10 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)   DOI
11 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)   DOI
12 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)   DOI
13 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)   DOI
14 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)   DOI
15 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)   DOI
16 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)   DOI
17 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)   DOI
18 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)   DOI
19 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)   DOI
20 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)
21 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)   DOI
22 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)   DOI
23 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)   DOI