PURPOSE: To determine if response to endocrine therapy of breast cancer can be predicted by either a metabolic "flare reaction" detected by positron emission tomography (PET) with 2-[(18)F]-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG), induced by an estradiol challenge, or by estrogen-receptor (ER) status, determined by PET with the estrogen analog 16alpha-[(18)F]fluoroestradiol-17beta (FES). METHODS: Fifty-one post-menopausal women with advanced estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer were studied. Patients underwent FES-PET and FDG-PET at baseline and repeat FDG-PET after 30 mg estradiol. Tracer uptakes was measured as the standardized uptake value (SUV). Patients were subsequently treated with either an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant. A prospectively defined cut-off SUV >or= 2 for FES was considered positive for ER expression. A cutoff of >or=12% increase in SUV for FDG, determined by ROC analysis, represented metabolic flare. PET results were correlated with responsiveness to endocrine therapy. RESULTS: Seventeen patients responded and 34 patients did not respond to endocrine therapy. Four responders and one non-responder had a clinical flare reaction, while only the responders demonstrated metabolic flare. After estradiol challenge, a significantly higher mean (+/-SD) percent change in SUV for FDG was noted in responders (20.9 +/- 24.2) compared with non-responders (-4.3 +/- 11.0, P < 0.0001). On FES-PET, a higher tumor SUV was noted in responders (3.5 +/- 2.5) compared with non-responders (2.1 +/- 1.8, P = 0.0049). There was significantly longer overall survival in patients with metabolic flare than in those without flare regardless of type of endocrine therapy (P = 0.0062). CONCLUSION: Baseline tumor FES uptake and metabolic flare after an estradiol challenge are both predictive of responsiveness to endocrine therapy in ER+ breast cancer.
PURPOSE: To determine if response to endocrine therapy of breast cancer can be predicted by either a metabolic "flare reaction" detected by positron emission tomography (PET) with 2-[(18)F]-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG), induced by an estradiol challenge, or by estrogen-receptor (ER) status, determined by PET with the estrogen analog 16alpha-[(18)F]fluoroestradiol-17beta (FES). METHODS: Fifty-one post-menopausal women with advanced estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer were studied. Patients underwent FES-PET and FDG-PET at baseline and repeat FDG-PET after 30 mg estradiol. Tracer uptakes was measured as the standardized uptake value (SUV). Patients were subsequently treated with either an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant. A prospectively defined cut-off SUV >or= 2 for FES was considered positive for ER expression. A cutoff of >or=12% increase in SUV for FDG, determined by ROC analysis, represented metabolic flare. PET results were correlated with responsiveness to endocrine therapy. RESULTS: Seventeen patients responded and 34 patients did not respond to endocrine therapy. Four responders and one non-responder had a clinical flare reaction, while only the responders demonstrated metabolic flare. After estradiol challenge, a significantly higher mean (+/-SD) percent change in SUV for FDG was noted in responders (20.9 +/- 24.2) compared with non-responders (-4.3 +/- 11.0, P < 0.0001). On FES-PET, a higher tumor SUV was noted in responders (3.5 +/- 2.5) compared with non-responders (2.1 +/- 1.8, P = 0.0049). There was significantly longer overall survival in patients with metabolic flare than in those without flare regardless of type of endocrine therapy (P = 0.0062). CONCLUSION: Baseline tumorFES uptake and metabolic flare after an estradiol challenge are both predictive of responsiveness to endocrine therapy in ER+ breast cancer.
Authors: H Mouridsen; M Gershanovich; Y Sun; R Pérez-Carrión; C Boni; A Monnier; J Apffelstaedt; R Smith; H P Sleeboom; F Jänicke; A Pluzanska; M Dank; D Becquart; P P Bapsy; E Salminen; R Snyder; M Lassus; J A Verbeek; B Staffler; H A Chaudri-Ross; M Dugan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-05-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Cheng Fan; Daniel S Oh; Lodewyk Wessels; Britta Weigelt; Dimitry S A Nuyten; Andrew B Nobel; Laura J van't Veer; Charles M Perou Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-08-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: K Kubota; T Matsuzawa; M Ito; K Ito; T Fujiwara; Y Abe; S Yoshioka; H Fukuda; J Hatazawa; R Iwata Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1985-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: J E Mortimer; F Dehdashti; B A Siegel; K Trinkaus; J A Katzenellenbogen; M J Welch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A Howell; J F R Robertson; J Quaresma Albano; A Aschermannova; L Mauriac; U R Kleeberg; I Vergote; B Erikstein; A Webster; C Morris Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-08-15 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Tapan K Nayak; Megan K Dennis; Chinnasamy Ramesh; Ritwik Burai; Robert W Atcher; Larry A Sklar; Jeffrey P Norenberg; Helen J Hathaway; Jeffrey B Arterburn; Eric R Prossnitz Journal: ACS Chem Biol Date: 2010-07-16 Impact factor: 5.100
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
Authors: Matthew J Ellis; Feng Gao; Farrokh Dehdashti; Donna B Jeffe; P Kelly Marcom; Lisa A Carey; Maura N Dickler; Paula Silverman; Gini F Fleming; Aruna Kommareddy; S Jamalabadi-Majidi; Robert Crowder; Barry A Siegel Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-08-19 Impact factor: 56.272