PURPOSE: 2-Deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) uptake may be a useful surrogate marker for proliferation index, but the correlation has not always been clear-cut. Previous research by our group suggests that FDG-positron emission tomography (PET) is sensitive in detecting triple negative breast cancer. We therefore performed a pilot study to test if FDG uptake correlated with proliferation index in women with triple negative cancer. PROCEDURES: To determine whether proliferation index correlates with metabolic uptake of FDG in women with triple negative breast cancer, we performed a retrospective analysis correlating %Ki67 nuclear stain with tumor maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) in a group of 41 women, 22 with triple negative and 19 with non-triple negative breast cancer. RESULTS: As expected, [18F]-PET imaging was significantly more sensitive in detecting triple negative breast cancer than non-triple negative breast cancer, 95.5% vs 68.4% (p = 0.036). In general, SUVmax and %Ki67 nuclear stain values rise as histologic grade worsens. Histologic grade of triple negative breast cancer was more often poorly differentiated than non-triple negative cancer (p = 0.001). SUVmax correlated with %Ki67 nuclear staining in our entire cohort (spearman correlation = 0.485, p = 0.002). Moreover, this significant correlation appeared to be driven primarily by a subset of women with triple negative cancer (spearman correlation = 0.497, p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Degree of tumor FDG uptake correlated significantly with proliferation index in women with triple negative breast cancer suggesting a potential role of FDG-PET in treatment response monitoring for this group of women. Future studies are necessary to define the role of PET imaging as a non-invasive means to monitor breast cancer treatment response in the neoadjuvant setting.
PURPOSE:2-Deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) uptake may be a useful surrogate marker for proliferation index, but the correlation has not always been clear-cut. Previous research by our group suggests that FDG-positron emission tomography (PET) is sensitive in detecting triple negative breast cancer. We therefore performed a pilot study to test if FDG uptake correlated with proliferation index in women with triple negative cancer. PROCEDURES: To determine whether proliferation index correlates with metabolic uptake of FDG in women with triple negative breast cancer, we performed a retrospective analysis correlating %Ki67 nuclear stain with tumor maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) in a group of 41 women, 22 with triple negative and 19 with non-triple negative breast cancer. RESULTS: As expected, [18F]-PET imaging was significantly more sensitive in detecting triple negative breast cancer than non-triple negative breast cancer, 95.5% vs 68.4% (p = 0.036). In general, SUVmax and %Ki67 nuclear stain values rise as histologic grade worsens. Histologic grade of triple negative breast cancer was more often poorly differentiated than non-triple negative cancer (p = 0.001). SUVmax correlated with %Ki67 nuclear staining in our entire cohort (spearman correlation = 0.485, p = 0.002). Moreover, this significant correlation appeared to be driven primarily by a subset of women with triple negative cancer (spearman correlation = 0.497, p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Degree of tumorFDG uptake correlated significantly with proliferation index in women with triple negative breast cancer suggesting a potential role of FDG-PET in treatment response monitoring for this group of women. Future studies are necessary to define the role of PET imaging as a non-invasive means to monitor breast cancer treatment response in the neoadjuvant setting.
Authors: C M Perou; T Sørlie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; C A Rees; J R Pollack; D T Ross; H Johnsen; L A Akslen; O Fluge; A Pergamenschikov; C Williams; S X Zhu; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale; P O Brown; D Botstein Journal: Nature Date: 2000-08-17 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: N Avril; C A Rosé; M Schelling; J Dose; W Kuhn; S Bense; W Weber; S Ziegler; H Graeff; M Schwaiger Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-10-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mitch Dowsett; Ian E Smith; Steve R Ebbs; J Michael Dixon; Anthony Skene; Clive Griffith; Irene Boeddinghaus; Janine Salter; Simone Detre; Margaret Hills; Susan Ashley; Stephen Francis; Geraldine Walsh; Roger A'Hern Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-02-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Sixiang Shi; Hao Hong; Hakan Orbay; Stephen A Graves; Yunan Yang; Jakob D Ohman; Bai Liu; Robert J Nickles; Hing C Wong; Weibo Cai Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-03-24 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Rong Zhou; Austin R Pantel; Shihong Li; Brian P Lieberman; Karl Ploessl; Hoon Choi; Eric Blankemeyer; Hsiaoju Lee; Hank F Kung; Robert H Mach; David A Mankoff Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Agata Malenda; Anna Skrobanska; Tadeusz Issat; Magdalena Winiarska; Jacek Bil; Bozenna Oleszczak; Maciej Sinski; Małgorzata Firczuk; Janusz M Bujnicki; Justyna Chlebowska; Adam D Staruch; Eliza Glodkowska-Mrowka; Jolanta Kunikowska; Leszek Krolicki; Leszek Szablewski; Zbigniew Gaciong; Katarzyna Koziak; Marek Jakobisiak; Jakub Golab; Dominika A Nowis Journal: Neoplasia Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 5.715
Authors: S Ke; W Wang; X Qiu; F Zhang; J T Yustein; A G Cameron; S Zhang; D Yu; C Zou; X Gao; J Lin; S Yallampalli; M Li Journal: Curr Mol Med Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 2.222