UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to characterize the biologic response of locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) to chemotherapy using (15)O-water-derived blood flow measurements and (18)F-FDG-derived glucose metabolism rate parameters. METHODS: Thirty-five LABC patients underwent PET with (15)O-water and (18)F-FDG before neoadjuvant chemotherapy and 2 mo after the initiation of treatment. Kinetic analysis for (15)O-water was performed using a single tissue compartment model to calculate blood flow; a 2-tissue compartment model was used to estimate (18)F-FDG rate parameters K(1), k(2), k(3), and the flux constant, K(i). Correlations and ratios between blood flow and (18)F-FDG rate parameters were calculated and compared with pathologic tumor response. RESULTS: Although blood flow and (18)F-FDG transport (K(1)) were correlated before chemotherapy, there was relatively poor correlation between blood flow and the phosphorylation constant (k(3)) or the overall (18)F-FDG flux (K(i)). Blood flow and (18)F-FDG flux were more closely matched after chemotherapy, with changes in k(3) accounting for the increased correlation. These findings were consistent with a decline in both the K(i)/flow and k(3)/flow ratios with therapy. The ratio of (18)F-FDG flux to transport (K(i)/K(1)) after 2 mo of chemotherapy was predictive of ultimate response. CONCLUSION: The pattern of tumor glucose metabolism in LABC, as reflected by analysis of (18)F-FDG rate parameters, changes after therapy, even in patients with modest clinical responses. This may indicate a change in tumor "metabolic phenotype" in response to treatment. A low ratio of glucose metabolism (reflected by K(i)) to glucose delivery (reflected by K(1) and blood flow) after therapy is associated with a favorable response. Further work is needed to understand the tumor biology underlying these findings.
UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to characterize the biologic response of locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) to chemotherapy using (15)O-water-derived blood flow measurements and (18)F-FDG-derived glucose metabolism rate parameters. METHODS: Thirty-five LABC patients underwent PET with (15)O-water and (18)F-FDG before neoadjuvant chemotherapy and 2 mo after the initiation of treatment. Kinetic analysis for (15)O-water was performed using a single tissue compartment model to calculate blood flow; a 2-tissue compartment model was used to estimate (18)F-FDG rate parameters K(1), k(2), k(3), and the flux constant, K(i). Correlations and ratios between blood flow and (18)F-FDG rate parameters were calculated and compared with pathologic tumor response. RESULTS: Although blood flow and (18)F-FDG transport (K(1)) were correlated before chemotherapy, there was relatively poor correlation between blood flow and the phosphorylation constant (k(3)) or the overall (18)F-FDG flux (K(i)). Blood flow and (18)F-FDG flux were more closely matched after chemotherapy, with changes in k(3) accounting for the increased correlation. These findings were consistent with a decline in both the K(i)/flow and k(3)/flow ratios with therapy. The ratio of (18)F-FDG flux to transport (K(i)/K(1)) after 2 mo of chemotherapy was predictive of ultimate response. CONCLUSION: The pattern of tumor glucose metabolism in LABC, as reflected by analysis of (18)F-FDG rate parameters, changes after therapy, even in patients with modest clinical responses. This may indicate a change in tumor "metabolic phenotype" in response to treatment. A low ratio of glucose metabolism (reflected by K(i)) to glucose delivery (reflected by K(1) and blood flow) after therapy is associated with a favorable response. Further work is needed to understand the tumor biology underlying these findings.
Authors: Finbarr O'Sullivan; Mark Muzi; David A Mankoff; Janet F Eary; Alexander M Spence; Kenneth A Krohn Journal: Ann Appl Stat Date: 2014-06-01 Impact factor: 2.083
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Risa K Vanantwerp; Robert K Doot; Xiaoyu Chai; Brenda F Kurland; Peter R Eby; Jennifer M Specht; Lisa K Dunnwald; Erin K Schubert; Constance D Lehman; David A Mankoff Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Kristen A Wangerin; Mark Muzi; Lanell M Peterson; Hannah M Linden; Alena Novakova; David A Mankoff; Paul E Kinahan Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Kenneth A Krohn; Finbarr O'Sullivan; John Crowley; Janet F Eary; Hannah M Linden; Jeanne M Link; David A Mankoff; Mark Muzi; Joseph G Rajendran; Alexander M Spence; Kristin R Swanson Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Michael A Fischer; Bart Vrugt; Hatem Alkadhi; Dieter Hahnloser; Thomas F Hany; Patrick Veit-Haibach Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Soren D Konecky; Regine Choe; Alper Corlu; Kijoon Lee; Rony Wiener; Shyam M Srinivas; Janet R Saffer; Richard Freifelder; Joel S Karp; Nassim Hajjioui; Fred Azar; Arjun G Yodh Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Nanda Krak; Jacobus van der Hoeven; Otto Hoekstra; Jos Twisk; Elsken van der Wall; Adriaan Lammertsma Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2008-08-16 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Heling Zhou; Kate Luby-Phelps; Bruce E Mickey; Amyn A Habib; Ralph P Mason; Dawen Zhao Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-11-30 Impact factor: 3.240