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

Abstract

ObjectiveTo 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 MethodsBreast 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.ResultsSeventy-nine females (mean age 51.0 ± 9.3 years) were included. Pathology showed 45 responders and 34 non-responders. 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.ConclusionRECIST 1.1 showed better diagnostic performance than RECIST 1.0, although there was no statistically significant difference between the two.

Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation?

“…Of these, 60 were excluded because they were letters, editorials, or abstracts instead of a full article (n = 1), a case report or series (n = 2), a review article (n = 16), or not in the field of interest (n = 41). Thus, 63 articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria ( 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 ).…”

Meta-Analysis of Quantitative Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI for the Assessment of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer

“…Breast cancer NAC treatment can reduce the level of cancer and improve patient survival and quality of life. 21 Because of the large individual differences, patients with different pathological types have different sensitivities to NAC. Therefore, the effect of breast cancer on NAC treatment ought to be accurately assessed, and the size and blood supply of cancer after NAC should be correctly evaluated, which could help improve the prognosis of patients.…”

Selection and Reporting of Statistical Methods to Assess Reliability of a Diagnostic Test: Conformity to Recommended Methods in a Peer-Reviewed Journal

“…Regarding the DTA studies, one reviewer experienced in DTA studies selected eligible articles according to criteria established elsewhere ( 9 ) with additional confirmation by another DTA expert in cases of ambiguity. Of the initial 124 candidate articles, 63 articles ( 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 ) were finally included. Regarding the studies that analyzed reliability, eligible articles were chosen by consensus after review by two of four independent reviewers experienced in the relevant methodology.…”