UNLABELLED: The PET compound (18)F-fluoroestradiol ((18)F-FES) has been developed and tested as an agent for the imaging of estrogen receptor (ER) expression in vivo. (18)F-FES uptake has been shown to correlate with ER expression assayed in vitro by radioligand binding; however, immunohistochemistry (IHC) rather than radioligand binding is used most often to measure ER expression in clinical practice. We therefore compared (18)F-FES uptake with ER expression assayed in vitro by IHC with both qualitative and semiquantitative measures. METHODS: Seventeen patients with primary or metastatic breast cancer were studied with dynamic (18)F-FES PET; cancer tissue samples, collected close to the time of imaging, were assayed for ER expression by IHC. For each tumor, partial-volume-corrected measures of (18)F-FES uptake were compared with ER expression measured by 3 different ER scoring methods: qualitative scoring (0-3+), the Allred score (0-10), and a computerized IHC index. RESULTS: There was excellent agreement (r = 0.99) between observers using IHC as well as the different methods of measuring ER content (P < 0.001). ER-negative tumors had (18)F-FES partial-volume-corrected standardized uptake values of less than 1.0, whereas ER-positive tumors had values above 1.1. Correlation coefficients for the different measures of ER content and the different measures of (18)F-FES uptake ranged from 0.57 to 0.73, with the best correlation being between the computerized IHC index and (18)F-FES partial-volume-corrected standardized uptake values. CONCLUSION: Our results showed good agreement between (18)F-FES PET and ER expression measured by IHC. (18)F-FES imaging may be a useful tool for aiding in the assessment of ER status, especially in patients with multiple tumors or for tumors that are difficult to biopsy.
UNLABELLED: The PET compound (18)F-fluoroestradiol ((18)F-FES) has been developed and tested as an agent for the imaging of estrogen receptor (ER) expression in vivo. (18)F-FES uptake has been shown to correlate with ER expression assayed in vitro by radioligand binding; however, immunohistochemistry (IHC) rather than radioligand binding is used most often to measure ER expression in clinical practice. We therefore compared (18)F-FES uptake with ER expression assayed in vitro by IHC with both qualitative and semiquantitative measures. METHODS: Seventeen patients with primary or metastatic breast cancer were studied with dynamic (18)F-FES PET; cancer tissue samples, collected close to the time of imaging, were assayed for ER expression by IHC. For each tumor, partial-volume-corrected measures of (18)F-FES uptake were compared with ER expression measured by 3 different ER scoring methods: qualitative scoring (0-3+), the Allred score (0-10), and a computerized IHC index. RESULTS: There was excellent agreement (r = 0.99) between observers using IHC as well as the different methods of measuring ER content (P < 0.001). ER-negative tumors had (18)F-FES partial-volume-corrected standardized uptake values of less than 1.0, whereas ER-positive tumors had values above 1.1. Correlation coefficients for the different measures of ER content and the different measures of (18)F-FES uptake ranged from 0.57 to 0.73, with the best correlation being between the computerized IHC index and (18)F-FES partial-volume-corrected standardized uptake values. CONCLUSION: Our results showed good agreement between (18)F-FES PET and ER expression measured by IHC. (18)F-FES imaging may be a useful tool for aiding in the assessment of ER status, especially in patients with multiple tumors or for tumors that are difficult to biopsy.
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: 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: Lanell M Peterson; Brenda F Kurland; Erin K Schubert; Jeanne M Link; V K Gadi; Jennifer M Specht; Janet F Eary; Peggy Porter; Lalitha K Shankar; David A Mankoff; Hannah M Linden Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2013-10-30 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Lanell M Peterson; Brenda F Kurland; Jeanne M Link; Erin K Schubert; Svetlana Stekhova; Hannah M Linden; David A Mankoff Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2011-05-05 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Lawrence R MacDonald; Joseph Y Lo; Gregory M Sturgeon; Chengeng Zeng; Robert L Harrison; Paul E Kinahan; William Paul Segars Journal: IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci Date: 2020-04-29
Authors: Michel Paquette; Serge Phoenix; René Ouellet; Réjean Langlois; Johan E van Lier; Eric E Turcotte; Francois Bénard; Roger Lecomte Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Brenda F Kurland; Lanell M Peterson; Jean H Lee; Erin K Schubert; Erin R Currin; Jeanne M Link; Kenneth A Krohn; David A Mankoff; Hannah M Linden Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 12.531