Literature DB >> 18372468

Bone metastases in patients with metastatic breast cancer: morphologic and metabolic monitoring of response to systemic therapy with integrated PET/CT.

Ukihide Tateishi1, Cristina Gamez, Shaheenah Dawood, Henry W D Yeung, Massimo Cristofanilli, Homer A Macapinlac.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare morphologic and metabolic changes in bone metastases in response to systemic therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) with integrated positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board waived the requirement for informed consent and approved this HIPAA-compliant study. A retrospective analysis was performed with 102 women (mean age, 55 years) with MBC who received systemic treatment. All patients underwent integrated PET/CT before and after treatment. Two reviewers analyzed the images in consensus. Morphologic changes, including morphologic patterns, and lesion attenuation were evaluated. Standardized uptake value (SUV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were analyzed to evaluate metabolic changes. Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors that enabled response duration (RD) to be predicted.
RESULTS: At baseline, the morphologic patterns of the target lesions were lytic (n = 33), sclerotic (n = 22), mixed (n = 42), and unclassified (n = 5). Progression of sclerotic change after treatment was identified in 49 patients (48%). After treatment, the mean attenuation of the lesion increased, whereas the mean SUV and TLG decreased. Increases in attenuation correlated significantly with decreases in SUV (r = -0.510, P < .001) and TLG (r = -0.491, P < . 001). Univariate analysis revealed that the increase in attenuation and the decrease in SUV were potential predictors of RD. Multivariate analysis revealed that an increase in the change in SUV was a significant predictor of RD (relative risk, 2.4; P = .003).
CONCLUSION: A decrease in SUV after treatment was an independent predictor of RD in patients with MBC who had bone metastases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18372468     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2471070567

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  50 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

Review 3.  Present and future role of FDG-PET/CT imaging in the management of breast cancer.

Authors:  Kazuhiro Kitajima; Yasuo Miyoshi
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2016-01-05       Impact factor: 2.374

4.  Quantitative assessment of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in patients with primary rectal cancer: correlation with FDG-PET/CT.

Authors:  Jing Gu; Pek-Lan Khong; Silun Wang; Queenie Chan; Wailun Law; Jingbo Zhang
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2010-09-25       Impact factor: 3.488

5.  Prognostic value of baseline [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and 99mTc-MDP bone scan in progressing metastatic prostate cancer.

Authors:  Gustavo S P Meirelles; Heiko Schöder; Gregory C Ravizzini; Mithat Gönen; Josef J Fox; John Humm; Michael J Morris; Howard I Scher; Steven M Larson
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2010-10-25       Impact factor: 12.531

6.  A phase 2 study of 16α-[18F]-fluoro-17β-estradiol positron emission tomography (FES-PET) as a marker of hormone sensitivity in metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

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

Review 7.  Role of positron emission tomography for the monitoring of response to therapy in breast cancer.

Authors:  Olivier Humbert; Alexandre Cochet; Bruno Coudert; Alina Berriolo-Riedinger; Salim Kanoun; François Brunotte; Pierre Fumoleau
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2015-01-05

Review 8.  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

9.  Cancer Response Criteria and Bone Metastases: RECIST 1.1, MDA and PERCIST.

Authors:  Colleen M Costelloe; Hubert H Chuang; John E Madewell; Naoto T Ueno
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2010-06-28       Impact factor: 4.207

10.  FDG-PET/CT imaging biomarkers in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Vasavi Paidpally; Alin Chirindel; Stella Lam; Nishant Agrawal; Harry Quon; Rathan M Subramaniam
Journal:  Imaging Med       Date:  2012-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.