A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

[Comparison of response evaluation methods of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients]. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • This study evaluates how effective clinical examination, ultrasound, and mammography are in assessing the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in 141 patients.
  • The findings reveal high rates of misjudgment in tumor response, with clinical exams and ultrasounds frequently overestimating tumor size and nodal status.
  • The authors recommend that clinicians should rely on pathological evaluations, like needle puncture or sentinel lymph node biopsy, to better determine node status and avoid false assessments during treatment.

Article Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficiency of response evaluation by clinical examination, ultrasonograghy and mammography in neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for breast cancer.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to analyze the data of 141 patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Response evaluation was performed by clinical palpation, ultrasound and mammography.

Results: Only 12 (8.5%) among the 141 patients presented with a stage I tumor. The tumor size determined by palpation was often larger than that by ultrasound before therapy (P < 0.01). Among patients with suspicions axillary nodes checked by ultrasound, 88.3% (53/60) of them had positive nodes by pathology before NAC, and 34.5% (10/29) of patients with negative nodes determined by ultrasound had positive nodes by pathology. In all the 141 patients, 21(14.9%) showed pathological complete remission in both the primary tumor and lymph node. For response evaluation, the false complete remission rate judged by clinical examination was 46.8% (22/47), and the false tumor residual rate by ultrasound was 84.0% (21/25). In 53.5% (23/43) of patients the response could not be assessed by mammography due to that the tumors were undistinguishable in size. The range of microcalcification was not reduced in 5 patients with a partial response of the tumor. 25 patients experienced needle puncture during therapy. Among them, in the 9 pathologically negative patients, only 3 achieved pCR, and the other 16 positive patients didn't achieve pCR.

Conclusion: Using the puncture or sentinel lymph node biopsy, clinicians should pay enough emphasis on the pathological determination of the node status before chemotherapy. Clinicians will make a quite of false judgment of the tumor by clinical examination, ultrasound or mammography. They may use needle puncture during therapy to evaluate the response of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and the result should be analyzed synthetically.

Download full-text PDF

Source

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

response evaluation
16
neoadjuvant chemotherapy
16
clinical examination
12
141 patients
12
patients
10
positive nodes
8
nodes pathology
8
complete remission
8
lymph node
8
needle puncture
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!