Literature DB >> 16000283

Early prediction of response to chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer using sequential 18F-FDG PET.

Joerg Dose Schwarz1, Michael Bader, Lars Jenicke, Gabriele Hemminger, Fritz Jänicke, Norbert Avril.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Chemotherapy is currently the treatment of choice for patients with high-risk metastatic breast cancer. Clinical response is determined after several cycles of chemotherapy by changes in tumor size as assessed by conventional imaging procedures including CT, MRI, plain film radiography, or ultrasound. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of sequential 18F-FDG PET to predict response after the first and second cycles of standardized chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer.
METHODS: Eleven patients with 26 metastatic lesions underwent 31 (18)F-FDG PET examinations (240-400 MBq of 18F-FDG; 10-min 2-dimensional emission and transmission scans). Clinical response, as assessed by conventional imaging after completion of chemotherapy, served as the reference. 18F-FDG PET images after the first and second cycles of chemotherapy were analyzed semiquantitatively for each metastatic lesion using standardized uptake values (SUVs) normalized to patients' blood glucose levels. In addition, whole-body 18F-FDG PET images were viewed for overall changes in the 18F-FDG uptake pattern of metastatic lesions within individual patients and compared with conventional imaging results after the third and sixth cycles of chemotherapy.
RESULTS: After completion of chemotherapy, 17 metastatic lesions responded, as assessed by conventional imaging procedures. In those lesions, SUV decreased to 72% +/- 21% after the first cycle and 54% +/- 16% after the second cycle, when compared with the baseline PET scan. In contrast, 18F-FDG uptake in lesions not responding to chemotherapy (n = 9) declined only to 94% +/- 19% after the first cycle and 79% +/- 9% after the second cycle. The differences between responding and nonresponding lesions were statistically significant after the first (P = 0.02) and second (P = 0.003) cycles. Visual analysis of 18F-FDG PET images correctly predicted the response in all patients as early as after the first cycle of chemotherapy. As assessed by 18F-FDG PET, the overall survival in nonresponders (n = 5) was 8.8 mo, compared with 19.2 mo in responders (n = 6).
CONCLUSION: In patients with metastatic breast cancer, sequential 18F-FDG PET allowed prediction of response to treatment after the first cycle of chemotherapy. The use of 18F-FDG PET as a surrogate endpoint for monitoring therapy response offers improved patient care by individualizing treatment and avoiding ineffective chemotherapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16000283

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  62 in total

1.  Can FDG PET/CT monitor the response to hormonal therapy in breast cancer patients?

Authors:  Laura Evangelista; Domenico Rubello; Giorgio Saladini
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Assessment of response to endocrine therapy using FDG PET/CT in metastatic breast cancer: a pilot study.

Authors:  Nina Mortazavi-Jehanno; Anne-Laure Giraudet; Laurence Champion; Florence Lerebours; Elise Le Stanc; Veronique Edeline; Olivier Madar; Dominique Bellet; Alain Paul Pecking; Jean-Louis Alberini
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2011-12-20       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Whither the PET scan? The role of PET imaging in the staging and treatment of breast cancer.

Authors:  Alessandra Gennari; Arnoldo Piccardo; Vania Altrinetti; Davide Corradengo; Giampiero Villavecchia; Andrea De Censi
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 5.075

Review 4.  Biological imaging for selecting and monitoring cancer therapy; a pathway to individualised therapy.

Authors:  Markus Schwaiger; Christian Peschel
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 5.  Current and future use of positron emission tomography (PET) in breast cancer.

Authors:  David A Mankoff; William B Eubank
Journal:  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.673

6.  Chemotherapy response assessment in stage IV melanoma patients-comparison of 18F-FDG-PET/CT, CT, brain MRI, and tumormarker S-100B.

Authors:  Klaus Strobel; Reinhard Dummer; Hans C Steinert; Katrin Baumann Conzett; Karin Schad; Marisol Pérez Lago; Jan D Soyka; P Veit-Haibach; Burkhardt Seifert; V Kalff
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2008-05-06       Impact factor: 9.236

7.  Degree of tumor FDG uptake correlates with proliferation index in triple negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Julia Tchou; Seema S Sonnad; Meredith R Bergey; Sandip Basu; John Tomaszewski; Abass Alavi; Mitchell Schnall
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2009-12-12       Impact factor: 3.488

8.  PET/CT Assessment of Response to Therapy: Tumor Change Measurement, Truth Data, and Error.

Authors:  Paul E Kinahan; Robert K Doot; Michelle Wanner-Roybal; Luc M Bidaut; Samuel G Armato; Charles R Meyer; Geoffrey McLennan
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.243

9.  Comparison of diffuse optical tomography of human breast with whole-body and breast-only positron emission tomography.

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

Review 10.  Monitoring in metastatic breast cancer: is imaging outdated in the era of circulating tumor cells?

Authors:  Marianna Alunni-Fabbroni; Volkmar Müller; Tanja Fehm; Wolfgang Janni; Brigitte Rack
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 2.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.