Skip to main content

Table 4 Correlation between the results of the three different evaluation methods and the Miller–Payne Grading of the lesions

From: Quantitative mathematical objective evaluation of contrast-enhanced spectral mammogram in the assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and prediction of residual disease in breast cancer

RECIST 1.1 Combined response evaluation approach Quantitative objective evaluation approach Pathological response (Miller–Payne grading)
Stable disease
(< 30% decrease in longest tumor diameter) (= Miller–Payne grade 1and 2)
7/42 (16.7%) Stable disease 2/42 patients (4.8%) Stable disease 0 patients (0%) Grade 1 1/42 patient (2.4%)
Poor response 1/42 patients (2.4 %) Poor response 2/42 patients (4.76%) Grade 2 2/42 patients (4.8 %)
Partial response (at least 30% decrease in longest tumor diameter) Correspondent to Miller–Payne grade 3and 4) 19/42 (45.2%) Moderate response 7/42 patients (16.7%) Moderate response 7/42 patients (16.67%) Grade 3 8/42 patients (19%)
Marked response 16/42 patients (38.1%) Marked response 15/42 patients (35.71%) Grade 4 14/42 patients (33.3%)
Complete response (complete disappearance of the lesion; Miller–Payne grade 5) 16/42 (38.1%) Complete response 16/42 patients (38.1 %) Complete response 18/42 patients (42.86%) Grade 5 17/42 patients (40.5%)