UNLABELLED: PET imaging is useful for evaluating locally advanced primary breast cancer. Expression of specific molecular markers in these cancers, such as estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2 status, has direct prognostic and therapeutic implications in patient management. This study aimed to determine whether a relationship exists between tumor glucose use and important molecular markers in invasive breast cancer. For our purposes, tumor glucose use is quantified by the PET-derived parameter maximum standardized uptake value (SUV). METHODS: Breast tumors from 36 patients were excised and examined histologically after PET. ER, PR, and HER2 status were determined for all lesions histopathologically. In addition, genomewide expression for a subset of 20 tumors was analyzed using the human genome U133A oligonucleotide microarray. RESULTS: A significant association was found between estrogen ER status and lesion SUV. ER-negative tumors (n = 17; median SUV, 8.5) demonstrated a significantly higher maximum SUV than did ER-positive tumors (n = 19; median SUV, 4.0) (P < 0.001). No significant association existed between SUV and PR status, HER2/neu status, lymph node involvement, or tumor size. Unsupervised hierarchic clustering of the 20 genetically profiled cancers segregated tumor samples into 2 primary groups of 10 patients each, largely corresponding to ER status. CONCLUSION: In locally invasive primary breast cancer, ER-negative tumors display higher (18)F-FDG uptake than ER-positive tumors. Microarray analysis confirms these data and identifies genes associated with increased glucose use as measured by PET. These genes significantly overlap those of a previously validated ER-status molecular phenotype. These preliminary data support a growing body of evidence that ER-positive and ER-negative breast cancers have distinct disease-specific patterns. Further validation prospectively and with larger numbers will be required to establish a robust molecular signature for metabolic uptake and patterns of aggressive behavior in advanced breast cancer.
UNLABELLED: PET imaging is useful for evaluating locally advanced primary breast cancer. Expression of specific molecular markers in these cancers, such as estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2 status, has direct prognostic and therapeutic implications in patient management. This study aimed to determine whether a relationship exists between tumorglucose use and important molecular markers in invasive breast cancer. For our purposes, tumorglucose use is quantified by the PET-derived parameter maximum standardized uptake value (SUV). METHODS:Breast tumors from 36 patients were excised and examined histologically after PET. ER, PR, and HER2 status were determined for all lesions histopathologically. In addition, genomewide expression for a subset of 20 tumors was analyzed using the human genome U133A oligonucleotide microarray. RESULTS: A significant association was found between estrogen ER status and lesion SUV. ER-negative tumors (n = 17; median SUV, 8.5) demonstrated a significantly higher maximum SUV than did ER-positive tumors (n = 19; median SUV, 4.0) (P < 0.001). No significant association existed between SUV and PR status, HER2/neu status, lymph node involvement, or tumor size. Unsupervised hierarchic clustering of the 20 genetically profiled cancers segregated tumor samples into 2 primary groups of 10 patients each, largely corresponding to ER status. CONCLUSION: In locally invasive primary breast cancer, ER-negative tumors display higher (18)F-FDG uptake than ER-positive tumors. Microarray analysis confirms these data and identifies genes associated with increased glucose use as measured by PET. These genes significantly overlap those of a previously validated ER-status molecular phenotype. These preliminary data support a growing body of evidence that ER-positive and ER-negative breast cancers have distinct disease-specific patterns. Further validation prospectively and with larger numbers will be required to establish a robust molecular signature for metabolic uptake and patterns of aggressive behavior in advanced breast cancer.
Authors: Lanell M Peterson; David A Mankoff; Thomas Lawton; Kevin Yagle; Erin K Schubert; Svetlana Stekhova; Allen Gown; Jeanne M Link; Timothy Tewson; Kenneth A Krohn Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: James W Fletcher; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Heloisa P Soares; Barry A Siegel; Val J Lowe; Gary H Lyman; R Edward Coleman; Richard Wahl; John Christopher Paschold; Norbert Avril; Lawrence H Einhorn; W Warren Suh; David Samson; Dominique Delbeke; Mark Gorman; Anthony F Shields Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Lyndsay Harris; Herbert Fritsche; Robert Mennel; Larry Norton; Peter Ravdin; Sheila Taube; Mark R Somerfield; Daniel F Hayes; Robert C Bast Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-10-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Whitney B Pope; Jenny H Chen; Jun Dong; Marc R J Carlson; Alla Perlina; Timothy F Cloughesy; Linda M Liau; Paul S Mischel; Phioanh Nghiemphu; Albert Lai; Stanley F Nelson Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Vincent Vinh-Hung; Hendrik Everaert; Jan Lamote; Mia Voordeckers; Hilde van Parijs; Marian Vanhoeij; Guy Verfaillie; Christel Fontaine; Hansjoerg Vees; Osman Ratib; Georges Vlastos; Mark De Ridder Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-07-10 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Shalini Jain; Xiao Wang; Chia-Chi Chang; Catherine Ibarra-Drendall; Hai Wang; Qingling Zhang; Samuel W Brady; Ping Li; Hong Zhao; Jessica Dobbs; Matt Kyrish; Tomasz S Tkaczyk; Adrian Ambrose; Christopher Sistrunk; Banu K Arun; Rebecca Richards-Kortum; Wei Jia; Victoria L Seewaldt; Dihua Yu Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2015-09-17 Impact factor: 12.701