ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: As of today, there is no validated standard method to assess clinical response of breast cancer to neo- adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Some centers use clinical dimensions while others use radiological measurements to evaluate response according to RECIST criteria. AIMS: The aim was to correlate and compare the clinical, radiological, and pathological parameters for assessing the tumor response in patients of breast cancer receiving NACT. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: Single institution, prospective nonrandomized study conducted over a 2-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with diagnosed breast cancer were assessed for response to NACT prior to surgery using clinical and radiological techniques. This was correlated with pathological reponse which was assessed by measuring gross dimensions and Miller-Payne grading of response to chemotherapy. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Spearman’s rho nonparametric. RESULTS: Fifty two patients completed the evaluation (out of 313 cases of ca breast treated during the same period) with a median age of 52.5 years. We noted a 26.9% clinical complete response (CR) and 19.2% had pathological CR. Clinical evaluation had a sensitivity and specificity of 73.5% and 88.5% respectively compared to 14.2% and 100% respectively for radiological assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical assessment of response to NACT shows a higher sensitivity compared to radiological assessment. However the overall low sensitivity and specificity rates of clinical assessment mandate a search for a better method of evaluation.
Subject(s)
Adult , Aged , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Breast Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/drug therapy , Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/pathology , Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/radiotherapy , Chemotherapy, Adjuvant , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Middle Aged , Neoadjuvant Therapy , Neoplasm Staging , Prognosis , Prospective Studies , ROC Curve , Remission InductionABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study compared the response evaluation using the WHO (World Health Organization) criteria for patients with breast cancer with that of the RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumor) criteria in order to determine the significance of the RECIST criteria in breast cancer. METHODS: Between 2001 and 2005, 42 patients with measurable lesions radiologically receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for a breast carcinoma were enrolled in this study. The results were compared using a kappa test as a concordance measure between the two response criteria. RESULTS: With the WHO criteria, the overall response and progression rate were 35.7% (CR 0, PR 15) and 16.6% (PD 7) respectively. On the other hand, the overall response and progression rate using the RECIST criteria were 38.0% (CR 0, PR 16) and 7% (PD 3) respectively. The kappa value as a concordance measure between two response criteria was 0.718. CONCLUSION: The RECIST criteria are comparable to the WHO criteria in evaluating the response of breast cancer patients who have undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy. A comparison of these results with other studies of more common tumor types supports the implementation of RECIST as the standard criteria for evaluating the treatment response but also for monitoring progression.