PURPOSE: Patients with locally advanced breast carcinoma (LABC) receive preoperative chemotherapy to provide early systemic treatment and assess in vivo tumor response. Serial positron emission tomography (PET) has been shown to predict pathologic response in this setting. We evaluated serial quantitative PET tumor blood flow (BF) and metabolism as in vivo measurements to predict patient outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-three women with primary LABC underwent dynamic [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and [(15)O]water PET scans before and at midpoint of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The FDG metabolic rate (MRFDG) and transport (FDG K(1)) parameters were calculated; BF was estimated from the [(15)O]water study. Associations between BF, MRFDG, FDG K(1), and standardized uptake value and disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated using the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Patients with persistent or elevated BF and FDG K(1) from baseline to midtherapy had higher recurrence and mortality risks than patients with reductions. In multivariable analyses, BF and FDG K(1) changes remained independent prognosticators of DFS and OS. For example, in the association between BF and mortality, a patient with a 5% increase in tumor BF had a 67% higher mortality risk compared with a patient with a 5% decrease in tumor BF (hazard ratio = 1.67; 95% CI, 1.24 to 2.24; P < .001). CONCLUSION: LABC patients with limited or no decline in BF and FDG K(1) experienced higher recurrence and mortality risks that were greater than the effects of clinical tumor characteristics. Tumor perfusion changes over the course of neoadjuvant chemotherapy measured directly by [(15)O]water or indirectly by dynamic FDG predict DFS and OS.
PURPOSE:Patients with locally advanced breast carcinoma (LABC) receive preoperative chemotherapy to provide early systemic treatment and assess in vivo tumor response. Serial positron emission tomography (PET) has been shown to predict pathologic response in this setting. We evaluated serial quantitative PET tumor blood flow (BF) and metabolism as in vivo measurements to predict patient outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-three women with primary LABC underwent dynamic [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and [(15)O]water PET scans before and at midpoint of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The FDG metabolic rate (MRFDG) and transport (FDG K(1)) parameters were calculated; BF was estimated from the [(15)O]water study. Associations between BF, MRFDG, FDG K(1), and standardized uptake value and disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated using the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS:Patients with persistent or elevated BF and FDG K(1) from baseline to midtherapy had higher recurrence and mortality risks than patients with reductions. In multivariable analyses, BF and FDG K(1) changes remained independent prognosticators of DFS and OS. For example, in the association between BF and mortality, a patient with a 5% increase in tumor BF had a 67% higher mortality risk compared with a patient with a 5% decrease in tumor BF (hazard ratio = 1.67; 95% CI, 1.24 to 2.24; P < .001). CONCLUSION: LABC patients with limited or no decline in BF and FDG K(1) experienced higher recurrence and mortality risks that were greater than the effects of clinical tumor characteristics. Tumor perfusion changes over the course of neoadjuvant chemotherapy measured directly by [(15)O]water or indirectly by dynamic FDG predict DFS and OS.
Authors: M R Machiavelli; A O Romero; J E Pérez; J A Lacava; M E Domínguez; R Rodríguez; M R Barbieri; L A Romero Acuña; J M Romero Acuña; M J Langhi; S Amato; E H Ortiz; C T Vallejo; B A Leone Journal: Cancer J Sci Am Date: 1998 Mar-Apr
Authors: Lisa K Dunnwald; Julie R Gralow; Georgiana K Ellis; Robert B Livingston; Hannah M Linden; Thomas J Lawton; William E Barlow; Erin K Schubert; David A Mankoff Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jeffrey Tseng; Lisa K Dunnwald; Erin K Schubert; Jeanne M Link; Satoshi Minoshima; Mark Muzi; David A Mankoff Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: D C Abraham; R C Jones; S E Jones; J H Cheek; G N Peters; S M Knox; M D Grant; D W Hampe; D A Savino; S E Harms Journal: Cancer Date: 1996-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: H M Kuerer; L A Newman; A U Buzdar; K K Hunt; K Dhingra; T A Buchholz; S M Binkley; F C Ames; B W Feig; M I Ross; G N Hortobagyi; S E Singletary Journal: Am J Surg Date: 1998-12 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: S E Pinder; P Wencyk; D M Sibbering; J A Bell; C W Elston; R Nicholson; J F Robertson; R W Blamey; I O Ellis Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1995-01 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Finbarr O'Sullivan; Mark Muzi; David A Mankoff; Janet F Eary; Alexander M Spence; Kenneth A Krohn Journal: Ann Appl Stat Date: 2014-06-01 Impact factor: 2.083
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: Savannah C Partridge; Risa K Vanantwerp; Robert K Doot; Xiaoyu Chai; Brenda F Kurland; Peter R Eby; Jennifer M Specht; Lisa K Dunnwald; Erin K Schubert; Constance D Lehman; David A Mankoff Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Ana María García Vicente; Ángel Soriano Castrejón; Jesús Fernando López-Fidalgo; Mariano Amo-Salas; María Del Mar Muñoz Sanchez; Ruth Álvarez Cabellos; Ruth Espinosa Aunión Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Michael A Fischer; Bart Vrugt; Hatem Alkadhi; Dieter Hahnloser; Thomas F Hany; Patrick Veit-Haibach Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Gabriel Ramirez; Ashley R Proctor; Ki Won Jung; Tong Tong Wu; Songfeng Han; Russell R Adams; Jingxuan Ren; Daniel K Byun; Kelley S Madden; Edward B Brown; Thomas H Foster; Parisa Farzam; Turgut Durduran; Regine Choe Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 3.732