Tumour response interpretation with new tumour response criteria vs the World Health Organisation criteria in patients with bone-only metastatic breast cancer

被引:79
|
作者
Hamaoka, T. [2 ,3 ]
Costelloe, C. M. [4 ]
Madewell, J. E. [4 ]
Liu, P. [5 ]
Berry, D. A. [5 ]
Islam, R. [1 ]
Theriault, R. L. [1 ]
Hortobagyi, G. N. [1 ]
Ueno, N. T. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Breast Med Oncol, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Stem Cell Transplantat & Cellular Therapy, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[3] St Lukes Int Hosp, Tokyo, Japan
[4] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Diagnost Radiol, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[5] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Biostat & Appl Math, Houston, TX 77030 USA
关键词
bone diseases; breast neoplasms; diagnostic imaging; response assessment; FDG-PET; THERAPY; SCAN; TOMOGRAPHY; CARCINOMA; DIAGNOSIS; ONCOLOGY;
D O I
10.1038/sj.bjc.6605546
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: We compared the utility of a new response classification (MDA; based on computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), plain radiography (XR), and skeletal scintigraphy (SS)) and the World Health Organisation response classification (WHO; based on XR and SS) in stratifying breast cancer patients with bone-only metastases with respect to progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and clinical response. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 41 patients with bone-only metastatic breast cancer and assigned responses according to the MDA and WHO criteria. We analysed whether the MDA or WHO response classifications correlated with PFS and OS. RESULTS: With the MDA criteria, there were significant differences in PFS between patients classified as responders and those classified as nonresponders (P = 0.025), but with the WHO criteria, there were not. Neither criteria distinguished responders from nonresponders in terms of OS. MDA response criteria correlated better than WHO response criteria with clinical response assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The MDA classification is superior to the WHO classification in differentiating between responders and nonresponders among breast cancer patients with bone-only metastases. Application of the MDA classification may allow bone lesions to be considered measurable disease. Prospective study is needed to test the MDA classification among patients with bone metastasis. British Journal of Cancer (2010) 102, 651-657. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605546 www.bjcancer.com Published online 26 January 2010 (C) 2010 Cancer Research UK
引用
收藏
页码:651 / 657
页数:7
相关论文
共 19 条
  • [1] Tumour response interpretation with new tumour response criteria vs the World Health Organisation criteria in patients with bone-only metastatic breast cancer
    T Hamaoka
    C M Costelloe
    J E Madewell
    P Liu
    D A Berry
    R Islam
    R L Theriault
    G N Hortobagyi
    N T Ueno
    British Journal of Cancer, 2010, 102 : 651 - 657
  • [2] Prognostic Factors in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer with Bone-Only Metastases
    Parkes, Amanda
    Warneke, Carla L.
    Clifton, Katherine
    Al-Awadhi, Aydah
    Oke, Oluchi
    Pestana, Roberto Carmagnani
    Alhalabi, Omar
    Litton, Jennifer K.
    Hortobagyi, Gabriel N.
    ONCOLOGIST, 2018, 23 (11): : 1282 - 1288
  • [3] Clinical Characteristics, Prognostic Factors and Treatment Outcomes of Patients with Bone-Only Metastatic Breast Cancer
    Marie, Lina
    Braik, Dina
    Abdel-Razeq, Nayef
    Abu-Fares, Hala
    Al-Thunaibat, Ahmad
    Abdel-Razeq, Hikmat
    CANCER MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH, 2022, 14 : 2519 - 2531
  • [4] Comparison of PET metabolic indices for the early assessment of tumour response in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated by polychemotherapy
    Maisonobe, Jacques-Antoine
    Garcia, Camilo A.
    Necib, Hatem
    Vanderlinden, Bruno
    Hendlisz, Alain
    Flamen, Patrick
    Buvat, Irene
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING, 2013, 40 (02) : 166 - 174
  • [5] Comparison of PET metabolic indices for the early assessment of tumour response in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated by polychemotherapy
    Jacques-Antoine Maisonobe
    Camilo A. Garcia
    Hatem Necib
    Bruno Vanderlinden
    Alain Hendlisz
    Patrick Flamen
    Irène Buvat
    European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 2013, 40 : 166 - 174
  • [6] Prognostic impact of AJCC response criteria for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage II/III breast cancer patients: breast cancer subtype analyses
    Yang, Yaewon
    Im, Seock-Ah
    Keam, Bhumsuk
    Lee, Kyung-Hun
    Kim, Tae-Yong
    Suh, Koung Jin
    Ryu, Han Suk
    Moon, Hyeong-Gon
    Han, Sae-Won
    Oh, Do-Youn
    Han, Wonshik
    Kim, Tae-You
    Park, In Ae
    Noh, Dong-Young
    BMC CANCER, 2016, 16
  • [7] Treatment Response Assessment for Bladder Cancer on CT Based on Computerized Volume Analysis, World Health Organization Criteria, and RECIST
    Hadjiiski, Lubomir
    Weizer, Alon Z.
    Alva, Ajjai
    Caoili, Elaine M.
    Cohan, Richard H.
    Cha, Kenny
    Chan, Heang-Ping
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2015, 205 (02) : 348 - 352
  • [8] Comparison of EORTC Criteria and PERCIST for PET/CT Response Evaluation of Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated with Irinotecan and Cetuximab
    Skougaard, Kristin
    Nielsen, Dorte
    Jensen, Benny Vittrup
    Hendel, Helle Westergren
    JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2013, 54 (07) : 1026 - 1031
  • [9] Selective sentinel node biopsy after intratumour administration of radiotracer in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in relation to the level of tumour response
    Diaz-Exposito, R.
    Marti-Bonmati, L.
    Burgues, O.
    Casans-Tormo, I.
    Bermejo-de las Heras, B.
    Julve-Parreno, A.
    Caballero-Garate, A.
    REVISTA ESPANOLA DE MEDICINA NUCLEAR E IMAGEN MOLECULAR, 2016, 35 (06): : 358 - 364
  • [10] Comparison of prognostic value of different metabolic response criteria determined by PET/CT in patients with metastatic breast cancer under CDK 4/6 inhibitor treatment
    Onner, H.
    Erena, O. O.
    Koreza, M. K.
    Yilmaza, F.
    Gedika, G. K.
    REVISTA ESPANOLA DE MEDICINA NUCLEAR E IMAGEN MOLECULAR, 2023, 42 (05): : 318 - 323