Current Approaches and Challenges in Monitoring Treatment Responses in Breast Cancer

Overview

Journal J Cancer

Specialty Oncology

Date 2014 Jan 8

PMID 24396498

Citations 46

Authors

Lindsey J Graham

Matthew P Shupe

Erika J Schneble

Frederick L Flynt

Michael N Clemenshaw

Aaron D Kirkpatrick

Chris Gallagher

Aviram Nissan

Leonard Henry

Alexander Stojadinovic

George E Peoples

Nathan M Shumway

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Monitoring response to treatment is a key element in the management of breast cancer that involves several different viewpoints from surgery, radiology, and medical oncology. In the adjuvant setting, appropriate surgical and pathological evaluation guides adjuvant treatment and follow up care focuses on detecting recurrent disease with the intention of improving long term survival. In the neoadjuvant setting, assessing response to chemotherapy prior to surgery to include evaluation for pathologic response can provide prognostic information to help guide follow up care. In the metastatic setting, for those undergoing treatment, it is crucial to determine responders versus non-responders in order to help guide treatment decisions. In this review, we present the current guidelines for monitoring treatment response in the adjuvant, neoadjuvant, and metastatic setting. In addition, we also discuss challenges that are faced in each setting.

Citing Articles

Recent advancements in nanomaterial-based biosensors for diagnosis of breast cancer: a comprehensive review.

Yazdani Y, Jalali F, Tahmasbi H, Akbari M, Talebi N, Shahrtash S Cancer Cell Int. 2025; 25(1):50.

PMID: 39966938 PMC: 11834589. DOI: 10.1186/s12935-025-03663-8.

Resolving the Complexity: A Comprehensive Review on Carbon Monoxide Diffusion Capacity in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients.

Devalla L, Ghewade B, Jadhav U, Annareddy S Cureus. 2024; 16(2):e53492.

PMID: 38440009 PMC: 10911056. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.53492.

Dielectric Characterization of Ex-Vivo Breast Tissues: Differentiation of Tumor Types through Permittivity Measurements.

Fernandez-Aranzamendi E, Castillo-Aranibar P, San Roman Castillo E, Oller B, Ventura-Zaa L, Eguiluz-Rodriguez G Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(4).

PMID: 38398184 PMC: 10886458. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16040793.

Cost-effectiveness of 2-[F]FDG-PET/CT versus CE-CT for response monitoring in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a register-based comparative study.

Naghavi-Behzad M, Gerke O, Kodahl A, Vogsen M, Asmussen J, Weber W Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):16315.

PMID: 37770525 PMC: 10539314. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-43446-7.

The Enigma of Mammaglobin: Redefining the Biomarker Paradigm in Breast Carcinoma.

Milosevic B, Stojanovic B, Cvetkovic A, Jovanovic I, Spasic M, Dimitrijevic Stojanovic M Int J Mol Sci. 2023; 24(17).

PMID: 37686210 PMC: 10487666. DOI: 10.3390/ijms241713407.

References

Lin K, Eradat J, Mehta N, Bent C, Lee S, Apple S . Is a short-interval postradiation mammogram necessary after conservative surgery and radiation in breast cancer?. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 72(4):1041-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.02.017. View

McNaul D, Darke M, Garg M, Dale P . An evaluation of post-lumpectomy recurrence rates: is follow-up every 6 months for 2 years needed?. J Surg Oncol. 2013; 107(6):597-601. DOI: 10.1002/jso.23298. View

Gunia S, Merrigan T, Poulton T, Mamounas E . Evaluation of appropriate short-term mammographic surveillance in patients who undergo breast-conserving Surgery (BCS). Ann Surg Oncol. 2012; 19(10):3139-43. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-012-2578-x. View

Montgomery D, Krupa K, Cooke T . Follow-up in breast cancer: does routine clinical examination improve outcome? A systematic review of the literature. Br J Cancer. 2007; 97(12):1632-41. PMC: 2360278. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604065. View

Siegel R, DeSantis C, Virgo K, Stein K, Mariotto A, Smith T . Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012; 62(4):220-41. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21149. View

van Dalen A . Significance of cytokeratin markers TPA, TPA (cyk), TPS and CYFRA 21.1 in metastatic disease. Anticancer Res. 1996; 16(4B):2345-9. View

Lokich J . CEA: a monitor of therapy for breast and colon cancer. Am Fam Physician. 1978; 17(4):173-6. View

Baskic D, Ristic P, Matic S, Bankovic D, Popovic S, Arsenijevic N . Clinical evaluation of the simultaneous determination of CA 15-3, CA 125 and sHER2 in breast cancer. Biomarkers. 2007; 12(6):657-67. DOI: 10.1080/13547500701520563. View

Liberman L, Morris E, Dershaw D, Abramson A, Tan L . MR imaging of the ipsilateral breast in women with percutaneously proven breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 180(4):901-10. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.180.4.1800901. View

10.

Groheux D, Espie M, Giacchetti S, Hindie E . Performance of FDG PET/CT in the clinical management of breast cancer. Radiology. 2012; 266(2):388-405. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12110853. View

11.

Hunt K, Yi M, Mittendorf E, Guerrero C, Babiera G, Bedrosian I . Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is accurate and reduces the need for axillary dissection in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg. 2009; 250(4):558-66. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b8fd5e. View

12.

Eisenhauer E, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz L, Sargent D, Ford R . New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2008; 45(2):228-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026. View

13.

Kufe D . Mucins in cancer: function, prognosis and therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009; 9(12):874-85. PMC: 2951677. DOI: 10.1038/nrc2761. View

14.

Palli D, Russo A, Saieva C, Ciatto S, Del Turco M, Distante V . Intensive vs clinical follow-up after treatment of primary breast cancer: 10-year update of a randomized trial. National Research Council Project on Breast Cancer Follow-up. JAMA. 1999; 281(17):1586. DOI: 10.1001/jama.281.17.1586. View

15.

Barnsley G, Grunfeld E, Coyle D, Paszat L . Surveillance mammography following the treatment of primary breast cancer with breast reconstruction: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007; 120(5):1125-1132. DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000279143.66781.9a. View

16.

Klee G, Schreiber W . MUC1 gene-derived glycoprotein assays for monitoring breast cancer (CA 15-3, CA 27.29, BR): are they measuring the same antigen?. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004; 128(10):1131-5. DOI: 10.5858/2004-128-1131-MGGAFM. View

17.

Tondini C, Hayes D, Gelman R, Henderson I, Kufe D . Comparison of CA15-3 and carcinoembryonic antigen in monitoring the clinical course of patients with metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Res. 1988; 48(14):4107-12. View

18.

Wu L, Hu J, Gu H, Hua J, Xu J . Can diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) alone be used as a reliable sequence for the preoperative detection and characterisation of hepatic metastases? A meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2012; 49(3):572-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.08.021. View

19.

Yerushalmi R, Tyldesley S, Kennecke H, Speers C, Woods R, Knight B . Tumor markers in metastatic breast cancer subtypes: frequency of elevation and correlation with outcome. Ann Oncol. 2011; 23(2):338-45. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdr154. View

20.

Mughal A, Hortobagyi G, Fritsche H, Buzdar A, Yap H, Blumenschein G . Serial plasma carcinoembryonic antigen measurements during treatment of metastatic breast cancer. JAMA. 1983; 249(14):1881-6. View