PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate 18F-FDG PET/CT in predicting response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in large primary breast cancer. METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients underwent PET/CT at baseline and after the second cycle. Baseline MRI was performed to establish tumour size. All findings were confirmed by histopathological analysis. Changes in maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)) between baseline study and after two cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (epirubicin + cyclophosphamide + taxanes) were compared using response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) criteria and the Miller and Payne (M&P) scale. RESULTS: The mean tumour size was 4.3 +/- 1.4 cm. Forty patients were considered responders and ten as non-responders. SUV(max) changes in patients with good prognosis (M&P grades 4-5) were higher than in patients with bad prognosis (M&P grades 1-3) (p = 0.025). SUV(max) changes between responders and non-responders following RECIST criteria were also statistically significant (p = 0.0028). A cut-off DeltaSUV value of 40% differentiates both groups, with a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 80%. CONCLUSION: 18F-FDG PET/CT can predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy at an early stage.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate 18F-FDG PET/CT in predicting response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in large primary breast cancer. METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients underwent PET/CT at baseline and after the second cycle. Baseline MRI was performed to establish tumour size. All findings were confirmed by histopathological analysis. Changes in maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)) between baseline study and after two cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (epirubicin + cyclophosphamide + taxanes) were compared using response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) criteria and the Miller and Payne (M&P) scale. RESULTS: The mean tumour size was 4.3 +/- 1.4 cm. Forty patients were considered responders and ten as non-responders. SUV(max) changes in patients with good prognosis (M&P grades 4-5) were higher than in patients with bad prognosis (M&P grades 1-3) (p = 0.025). SUV(max) changes between responders and non-responders following RECIST criteria were also statistically significant (p = 0.0028). A cut-off DeltaSUV value of 40% differentiates both groups, with a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 80%. CONCLUSION: 18F-FDG PET/CT can predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy at an early stage.
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: Marinke Westerterp; Henderik L van Westreenen; Johannes B Reitsma; Otto S Hoekstra; Jaap Stoker; Paul Fockens; Pieter L Jager; Berthe L F Van Eck-Smit; John T M Plukker; J Jan B van Lanschot; Gerrit W Sloof Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: G Bonadonna; P Valagussa; C Brambilla; L Ferrari; A Moliterni; M Terenziani; M Zambetti Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: I C Smith; A E Welch; A W Hutcheon; I D Miller; S Payne; F Chilcott; S Waikar; T Whitaker; A K Ah-See; O Eremin; S D Heys; F J Gilbert; P F Sharp Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M Findlay; H Young; D Cunningham; A Iveson; B Cronin; T Hickish; B Pratt; J Husband; M Flower; R Ott Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1996-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: K Spaepen; S Stroobants; P Dupont; P Vandenberghe; J Thomas; T de Groot; J Balzarini; C De Wolf-Peeters; L Mortelmans; G Verhoef Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Farrokh Dehdashti; Perry W Grigsby; Robert J Myerson; Ilke Nalbantoglu; Changqing Ma; Barry A Siegel Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.488
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: Katja Pinker; Wolfgang Bogner; Stephan Gruber; Peter Brader; Siegfried Trattnig; Georgios Karanikas; Thomas H Helbich Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2011-04-29 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Marieke E Straver; Tjeerd S Aukema; Renato A Valdes Olmos; Emiel J T Rutgers; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs; Margaret E Schot; Wouter V Vogel; Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-02-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Michal E Schneider-Kolsky; Stewart Hart; Jane Fox; Peter Midolo; John Stuckey; Michael Hofman; Vinod Ganju Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2010-06-21 Impact factor: 6.466