SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • 1
    Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N, et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998; 16: 2672-2685.
  • 2
    Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bearet HD, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 778-785.
  • 3
    Smith IC, Heys SD, Hutcheon AW, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: significantly enhanced response with docetaxel. J Clin Oncol. 2002; 20: 1456-1466.
  • 4
    Wolff AC, Berry D, Carey LA, et al. Research issues affecting preoperative systemic therapy for operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 806-813.
  • 5
    Gralow JR, Burstein HJ, Wood W, et al. Preoperative therapy in invasive breast cancer: pathologic assessment and systemic therapy issues in operable disease. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 814-819.
  • 6
    Symmans WF, Peintinger F, Hatzis C, et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 4414-4422.
  • 7
    von Minckwitz G, Kummel S, Vogel P, et al. Intensified neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early responding breast cancer: phase III randomized GeparTrio study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008; 100: 552-562.
  • 8
    von Minckwitz G, Kummel S, Vogel P, et al. Neoadjuvant vinorelbine-capecitabine versus docetaxel-doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide in early nonresponsive breast cancer: phase III randomized GeparTrio trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008; 100: 542-551.
  • 9
    Smith IC, Welch AE, Hutcheon AW, et al. Positron emission tomography using [18F]-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose to predict the pathologic response of breast cancer to primary chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18: 1676-1688.
  • 10
    Schelling M, Avril N, Nahrig J, et al. Positron emission tomography using [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose for monitoring primary chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18: 1689-1695.
  • 11
    Burcombea RJ, Makris A, Pittam M, et al. Evaluation of good clinical response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in primary breast cancer using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Eur J Cancer. 2002; 38: 375-379.
  • 12
    Rousseau C, Devillers A, Sagan C, et al. Monitoring of early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and III breast cancer by [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24: 5366-5372.
  • 13
    McDermott GM, Welch A, Staff RT, et al. Monitoring primary breast cancer throughout chemotherapy using FDG-PET. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007; 102: 75-84.
  • 14
    Berriolo-Riedinger A, Touzery C, Riedinger JM, et al. [18F]FDG-PET predicts complete pathological response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007; 34: 1915-1924.
  • 15
    Schwarz-Dose J, Untch M, Tiling R, et al. Monitoring primary systemic therapy of large and locally advanced breast cancer by using sequential positron emission tomography imaging with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 27: 535-541.
  • 16
    International Union Against Cancer (UICC). In: SobinLH, WittekindC, eds. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors, 6th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 2002.
  • 17
    Schwartz GF, Hortobagyi GN. Proceedings of the consensus conference on neoadjuvant chemotherapy in carcinoma of the breast, April 26-28, 2003, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Cancer. 2004; 100: 2512-2532.
  • 18
    Ogston KN, Miller ID, Payne S, et al. A new histological grading system to assess response of breast cancers to primary chemotherapy: prognostic significance and survival. Breast. 2003; 12: 320-327.
  • 19
    Musto A, Zamagni C, Ambrosini V, et al. Predictive value of interim FDG-PET during neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients treated for locally advanced breast cancer (abstract). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006; 33( suppl 2): s200.
  • 20
    Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer. 1999; 35: 1773-1782.
  • 21
    Honkoop AH, van Diest PJ, de Jong JS, et al. Prognostic role of clinical, pathological and biological characteristics in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1998; 77: 621-626.
  • 22
    Ring AE, Smith IE, Ashley S, et al. Oestrogen receptor status, pathological complete response and prognosis in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2004; 91: 2012-2017.
  • 23
    Guarneri V, Broglio K, Kau SW, et al. Prognostic value of pathologic complete response after primary chemotherapy in relation to hormone receptor status and other factors. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24: 1037-1044.
  • 24
    Miyashita K, Takahashi N, Oka T, et al. SUV correction for injection errors in FDG-PET examination. Ann Nucl Med. 2007; 21: 607-613.
  • 25
    Hadi M, Bacharach SL, Whatley M, et al. Glucose and insulin variations in patients during the time course of a FDG-PET study and implications for the “glucose-corrected” SUV. Nucl Med Biol. 2008; 35: 441-445.
  • 26
    Nahmias C, Wahl LM. Reproducibility of standardized uptake value measurements determined by 18F-FDG PET in malignant tumors. J Nucl Med. 2008; 49: 1804-1808.
  • 27
    Westerterp M, Pruim J, Oyen W, et al. Quantification of FDG PET studies using standardised uptake values in multicentre trials: effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI definition parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007; 34: 392-404.