The American Journal of Surgery
Volume 199, Issue 4 , Pages 477-484, April 2010

Accuracy of ultrasonography and mammography in predicting pathologic response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer

  • Jason D. Keune, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Division of Health Behavior Research, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
  • ,
  • Donna B. Jeffe, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medicine, Division of Health Behavior Research, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
    • The Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
  • ,
  • Mario Schootman, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medicine, Division of Health Behavior Research, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
    • The Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
  • ,
  • Abigail Hoffman, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA
  • ,
  • William E. Gillanders, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Division of Health Behavior Research, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
    • The Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
  • ,
  • Rebecca L. Aft, M.D., Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Division of Health Behavior Research, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
    • The Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
    • John Cochran Veterans Hospital, St Louis, MO, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author: Tel.: 314-747-0063; fax: 314-454-5509

Received 24 November 2008; received in revised form 31 March 2009

Abstract 

Background

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy reduces tumor size before surgery in women with breast cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the ability of mammography and ultrasound to predict residual tumor size following neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Methods

In a retrospective review of consecutive breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, residual tumor size estimated by diagnostic imaging was compared with residual tumor size determined by surgical pathology.

Results

One hundred ninety-two patients with 196 primary breast cancers were studied. Of 104 tumors evaluated by both imaging modalities, ultrasound was able to size 91.3%, and mammography was able to size only 51.9% (χ2 P < .001). Ultrasound also was more accurate than mammography in estimating residual tumor size (62 of 104 [59.6%] vs 33 of 104 [31.7%], P < .001). There was little difference in the ability of mammography and ultrasound to predict pathologic complete response (receiver operating characteristic, 0.741 vs 0.784).

Conclusions

Breast ultrasound was more accurate than mammography in predicting residual tumor size following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The likelihood of a complete pathologic response was 80% when both imaging modalities demonstrated no residual disease.

Keywords: Breast carcinoma, Breast ultrasound mammography, Neoadjuvant chemotherapy

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 The Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center is supported in part by Cancer Center Support Grant P-30 CA91842 from the National Cancer Institute (Bethesda, MD).

PII: S0002-9610(09)00258-X

doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.03.012

The American Journal of Surgery
Volume 199, Issue 4 , Pages 477-484, April 2010