4.7 Article

Optimized Breast MRI Functional Tumor Volume as a Biomarker of Recurrence-Free Survival Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 40, Issue 2, Pages 476-482

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24351

Keywords

SER/PE thresholds; MRI breast functional tumor volume; neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health [R01 CA 069587, R01 CA 132870]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To evaluate optimal contrast kinetics thresholds for measuring functional tumor volume (FTV) by breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for assessment of recurrence-free survival (RFS). Materials and Methods: In this Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved retrospective study of 64 patients (ages 29-72, median age of 48.6) undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for breast cancer, all patients underwent pre-MRI1 and postchemotherapy MRI4 of the breast. Tumor was defined as voxels meeting thresholds for early percent enhancement (PEthresh) and early-to-late signal enhancement ratio (SERthresh); and FTV (PEthresh, SERthresh) by summing all voxels meeting threshold criteria and minimum connectivity requirements. Ranges of PEthresh from 50% to 220% and SERthresh from 0.0 to 2.0 were evaluated. A Cox proportional hazard model determined associations between change in FTV over treatment and RFS at different PE and SER thresholds. Results: The plot of hazard ratios for change in FTV from MRI1 to MRI4 showed a broad peak with the maximum hazard ratio and highest significance occurring at PE threshold of 70% and SER threshold of 1.0 (hazard ratio = 8.71, 95% confidence interval 2.86-25.5, P < 0.00015), indicating optimal model fit. Conclusion: Enhancement thresholds affect the ability of MRI tumor volume to predict RFS. The value is robust over a wide range of thresholds, supporting the use of FTV as a biomarker.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available