<?xml version='1.0'?>
<!DOCTYPE art SYSTEM 'http://www.biomedcentral.com/xml/article.dtd'>
<art>
   <ui>bcr2013</ui>
   <ji>BCJ</ji>
   <fm>
      <dochead>Oral presentation</dochead>
      <bibl>
         <title>
            <p>Evaluating tumour response to primary radiochemotherapy in breast cancer patients: what role for breast magnetic resonance imaging?</p>
         </title>
         <aug>
            <au id="A1">
               <snm>Thibault</snm>
               <fnm>F</fnm>
               <insr iid="I1"/>
            </au>
            <au id="A2">
               <snm>Bollet</snm>
               <fnm>MA</fnm>
               <insr iid="I1"/>
            </au>
            <au id="A3">
               <snm>Tardivon</snm>
               <fnm>A</fnm>
               <insr iid="I1"/>
            </au>
            <au id="A4">
               <snm>Malhaire</snm>
               <fnm>C</fnm>
               <insr iid="I1"/>
            </au>
            <au id="A5">
               <snm>Zemmour-Elfersi</snm>
               <fnm>G</fnm>
               <insr iid="I1"/>
            </au>
         </aug>
         <insg>
            <ins id="I1">
               <p>Institut Curie, Paris, France</p>
            </ins>
         </insg>
         <source>Breast Cancer Research</source>
         <supplement>
            <title>
               <p>Symposium Mammographicum 2008</p>
            </title>
            <note>Meeting abstracts</note>
            <url>http://breast-cancer-research.com/supplements/notes/BCR-vol10-suppl3-info.pdf</url>
         </supplement>
         <conference>
            <title>
               <p>Symposium Mammographicum 2008</p>
            </title>
            <location>Lille, France</location>
            <date-range>6&#8211;8 July 2008</date-range>
            <url>http://www.sympmamm.org.uk/</url>
         </conference>
         <issn>1465-5411</issn>
         <pubdate>2008</pubdate>
         <volume>10</volume>
         <issue>Suppl 3</issue>
         <fpage>P15</fpage>
         <url>http://breast-cancer-research.com/content/10/S3/P15</url>
         <xrefbib>
            <pubid idtype="doi">10.1186/bcr2013</pubid>
         </xrefbib>
      </bibl>
      <history>
         <pub>
            <date>
               <day>7</day>
               <month>7</month>
               <year>2008</year>
            </date>
         </pub>
      </history>
      <cpyrt>
         <year>2008</year>
         <collab>BioMed Central Ltd</collab>
      </cpyrt>
   </fm>
   <bdy>
      <sec>
         <st>
            <p>Objective</p>
         </st>
         <p>To evaluate the accuracy of clinical examination and of three imaging modalities (mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)) to assess the tumour response to a pre-operative regimen of concurrent radiochemotherapy for large breast cancers, and to anticipate the eventual complete pathologic response.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec>
         <st>
            <p>Methods</p>
         </st>
         <p>Sixty breast cancer women not amenable to conserving surgery at initial presentation were accrued in a phase II study. Treatment consisted of four cycles of 5-fluorouracil&#8211;vinorelbine with, starting with the second cycle of chemotherapy, radiotherapy to the breast and regional lymph nodes. Breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy was performed 4 to 6 weeks after completion of irradiation. Imaging assessment was performed before chemotherapy and preoperatively.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec>
         <st>
            <p>Results</p>
         </st>
         <p>Referring to pathologic data, the MRI assessment performed best. A 50% or greater decrease in the largest tumour diameter in MRI was linked to complete pathologic response with 81% sensitivity and 75% specificity. MRI&#8211;pathologic correlations helped understand the pitfalls in MRI interpretation that led to overestimating/underestimating some tumour responses.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec>
         <st>
            <p>Conclusion</p>
         </st>
         <p>Compared with the other assessment modalities, MRI substantially improved the prediction of pathologic tumour response. Pitfalls or limits in MRI interpretation in this specific setting were better understood.</p>
      </sec>
   </bdy>
</art>
