PURPOSE: In breast cancer, [(18)F]fluoroestradiol (FES) positron emission tomography (PET) correlates with estrogen receptors (ER) expression and predicts response to tamoxifen. We tested the ability of FES-PET imaging to predict response to salvage hormonal treatment in heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer patients, predominantly treated with aromatase inhibitors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Initial FES uptake measurements in 47 patients with ER-positive tumors were correlated with subsequent tumor response to 6 months of hormonal treatment. Most patients had bone dominant disease and prior tamoxifen exposure. Response was compared to initial FES-PET uptake, measured qualitatively and quantitatively using standardized uptake value (SUV) and estradiol-binding flux. RESULTS: Eleven of 47 patients (23%) had an objective response. While no patients with absent FES uptake had a response to treatment, the association between qualitative FES-PET results and response was not significant (P = .14). However, quantitative FES uptake and response were significantly associated; zero of 15 patients with initial SUV less than 1.5 responded to hormonal therapy, compared with 11 of 32 patients (34%) with SUV higher than 1.5 (P < .01). In the subset of patients whose tumors did not overexpress HER2/neu, 11 of 24 patients (46%) with SUV higher than 1.5 responded. CONCLUSION: Quantitative FES-PET can predict response to hormonal therapy and may help guide treatment selection. Treatment selection using quantitative FES-PET in our patient series would have increased the rate of response from 23% to 34% overall, and from 29% to 46% in the subset of patients lacking HER2/neu overexpression. A multi-institutional collaborative trial would permit definitive assessment of the value of FES-PET for therapeutic decision making.
PURPOSE: In breast cancer, [(18)F]fluoroestradiol (FES) positron emission tomography (PET) correlates with estrogen receptors (ER) expression and predicts response to tamoxifen. We tested the ability of FES-PET imaging to predict response to salvage hormonal treatment in heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancerpatients, predominantly treated with aromatase inhibitors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Initial FES uptake measurements in 47 patients with ER-positive tumors were correlated with subsequent tumor response to 6 months of hormonal treatment. Most patients had bone dominant disease and prior tamoxifen exposure. Response was compared to initial FES-PET uptake, measured qualitatively and quantitatively using standardized uptake value (SUV) and estradiol-binding flux. RESULTS: Eleven of 47 patients (23%) had an objective response. While no patients with absent FES uptake had a response to treatment, the association between qualitative FES-PET results and response was not significant (P = .14). However, quantitative FES uptake and response were significantly associated; zero of 15 patients with initial SUV less than 1.5 responded to hormonal therapy, compared with 11 of 32 patients (34%) with SUV higher than 1.5 (P < .01). In the subset of patients whose tumors did not overexpress HER2/neu, 11 of 24 patients (46%) with SUV higher than 1.5 responded. CONCLUSION: Quantitative FES-PET can predict response to hormonal therapy and may help guide treatment selection. Treatment selection using quantitative FES-PET in our patient series would have increased the rate of response from 23% to 34% overall, and from 29% to 46% in the subset of patients lacking HER2/neu overexpression. A multi-institutional collaborative trial would permit definitive assessment of the value of FES-PET for therapeutic decision making.
Authors: Amy M Fowler; Szeman Ruby Chan; Terry L Sharp; Nicole M Fettig; Dong Zhou; Carmen S Dence; Kathryn E Carlson; M Jeyakumar; John A Katzenellenbogen; Robert D Schreiber; Michael J Welch Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-06-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Albert E Cerussi; Vaya W Tanamai; David Hsiang; John Butler; Rita S Mehta; Bruce J Tromberg Journal: Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci Date: 2011-11-28 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Hannah M Linden; Brenda F Kurland; Lanell M Peterson; Erin K Schubert; Julie R Gralow; Jennifer M Specht; Georgiana K Ellis; Thomas J Lawton; Robert B Livingston; Philip H Petra; Jeanne M Link; Kenneth A Krohn; David A Mankoff Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-07-12 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Max A Kruziki; Brett A Case; Jie Y Chan; Elizabeth J Zudock; Daniel R Woldring; Douglas Yee; Benjamin J Hackel Journal: Mol Pharm Date: 2016-10-10 Impact factor: 4.939