Back to Authors

Ahmad, Sarwat

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6023-777X

Mayo Clinic

Mayo Clinic

Citations 2

Cancer embryonic antigen (CEA) levels in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma predict response to neo‐adjuvant chemotherapy and overall survival
Egbert, Lena K. , Norain, Abdullah , Stucky, Chee‐Chee , Ahmad, Sarwat , Wasif, Nabil , Egbert, Lena , Wasif, Nabil , Chang, Yu‐Hui

Journal of Surgical Oncology | December 15, 2022 | Volume: 127 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 688-698

10.1002/jso.27178 Get It

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesSerum tumor markers are widely used for diagnosis, prognosis, treatment response, and surveillance. Our study evaluated cancer embryonic antigen (CEA) in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma.MethodsThe National Cancer Database was reviewed (2004–2011) for patients with surgical treatment for appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Patients were stratified into two groups: normal and elevated CEA. Multivariable adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to determine the independent effect of CEA on survival.ResultsOur study consisted of 2867 patients, 54.0% having elevated CEA. Patients with elevated CEA were more likely to have Stage IV disease, be female, and African American; all p < 0.001. Three‐year overall survival (OS) was significantly higher with normal CEA (75.5% vs. 62.8%, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, elevated CEA was associated with worse survival (hazard ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.23–1.80). Patients with elevated CEA had improved 3‐year OS with neo‐adjuvant compared to adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.004), while those with normal CEA showed no difference.ConclusionsIn patients with surgically treated appendiceal adenocarcinoma, preoperative elevation in CEA independently predicts decreased 3‐year survival and correlates with improved OS with neo‐adjuvant therapy. CEA levels should be considered in clinical decision‐making regarding neo‐adjuvant therapy in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma.
Global tissue stiffness on breast MR elastography: High-risk dense breast patients have higher stiffness compared to average-risk dense breast patients.
Pepin, Kay , Brandt, Kathy R., Pockaj, Barbara A. , Northfelt, Donald W. , Anderson, Karen S. , Ahmad, Sarwat , Millstine, Denise , Apsey, Heidi A., Vachon, Celine M. , Nelson, Ilyse, Patel, Bhavika , Mazza, Gina L , Chen, Jun , Zhou, Yuxiang , Ernst, Brenda , Cronin, Patricia A. , Kling, Juliana M. , Vachon, Celine M. , Ehman, Richard L.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | June 2, 2021 | Volume: 39 | Issue: 15_suppl | Pages: 10541-10541

10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.10541 Get It

10541 Background: Biomechanical tissue properties may vary in the breasts of patients at elevated risk for breast cancer. We aim to quantify in vivo biomechanical tissue properties in various breast densities and in both normal risk and high risk women using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)/MRE and examine the association of biomechanical properties of the breast with cancer risk. Methods: In this IRB–approved prospective single-institution study, we recruited two groups of women differing by breast cancer risk to undergo a 3.0 T dynamic contrast enhanced MRI/MRE of the breast. Low-average risk women were defined as having no personal or significant family history of breast cancer, no prior high risk breast biopsies and a negative mammography within 12 months. High-risk breast cancer patients were recruited from those patients who underwent standard of care breast MR. Within each breast density group (non-dense versus dense), two-sample t-tests were used to compare breast stiffness, elasticity, and viscosity across risk groups (low-average vs high). Results: There were 50 low-average risk and 86 high-risk patients recruited to the study. The risk groups were similar on age (mean age = 55.6 and 53.6 years), density (68% vs. 64% dense breasts) and menopausal status (66.0% vs. 69.8%). Among patients with dense breasts, mean stiffness, elasticity, and viscosity were significantly higher in high risk patients ( N = 55) compared to low-average risk patients ( N = 34; all p < 0.001). In the multivariate logistic regression model, breast stiffness remained a significant predictor of risk status (OR=4.26, 95% CI [1.96, 9.25]) even after controlling for breast density, MRI BPE, age, and menopausal status. Similar results were seen for breast elasticity (OR=4.88, 95% CI [2.08, 11.43]) and viscosity (OR=11.49, 95% CI [1.15, 114.89]). Conclusions: Structurally-based, quantitative biomarker of tissue stiffness obtained from global 3D breast MRE is associated with differences in breast cancer risk in dense breasts. As such, tissue stiffness could provide a novel prognostic marker to help identify the subset of high-risk women with dense breasts who would benefit from increased surveillance.[Table: see text]