PURPOSE: Dynamic positron emission tomography (PET) imaging can identify patterns of breast cancer metabolism and perfusion in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC) that are predictive of response. This analysis examines tumor metabolism and perfusion by tumor subtype. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Tumor subtype was defined by immunohistochemistry in 71 patients with locally advanced breast cancer undergoing NC. Subtype was defined as luminal [estrogen receptor (ER)/progesterone receptor (PR) positive], triple negative [TN; ER/PR negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) negative], and HER2 (ER/PR negative, HER2 overexpressing). Metabolic rate (MRFDG) and blood flow (BF) were calculated from PET imaging before NC. Pathologic complete response (pCR) to NC was classified as pCR versus other. RESULTS: Twenty-five (35%) of 71 patients had TN tumors; 6 (8%) were HER2 and 40 (56%) were luminal. MRFDG for TN tumors was on average 67% greater than for luminal tumors (95% confidence interval, 9-156%) and average MRFDG/BF ratio was 53% greater in TN compared with luminal tumors (95% confidence interval, 9-114%; P<0.05 for both). Average BF levels did not differ by subtype (P=0.73). Most luminal tumors showed relatively low MRFDG and BF (and did not achieve pCR); high MRFDG was generally matched with high BF in luminal tumors and predicted pCR. This was not true in TN tumors. CONCLUSION: The relationship between breast tumor metabolism and perfusion differed by subtype. The high MRFDG/BF ratio that predicts poor response to NC was more common in TN tumors. Metabolism and perfusion measures may identify subsets of tumors susceptible and resistant to NC and may help direct targeted therapy. Copyright (c) 2010 AACR.
PURPOSE: Dynamic positron emission tomography (PET) imaging can identify patterns of breast cancer metabolism and perfusion in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC) that are predictive of response. This analysis examines tumor metabolism and perfusion by tumor subtype. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:Tumor subtype was defined by immunohistochemistry in 71 patients with locally advanced breast cancer undergoing NC. Subtype was defined as luminal [estrogen receptor (ER)/progesterone receptor (PR) positive], triple negative [TN; ER/PR negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) negative], and HER2 (ER/PR negative, HER2 overexpressing). Metabolic rate (MRFDG) and blood flow (BF) were calculated from PET imaging before NC. Pathologic complete response (pCR) to NC was classified as pCR versus other. RESULTS: Twenty-five (35%) of 71 patients had TN tumors; 6 (8%) were HER2 and 40 (56%) were luminal. MRFDG for TN tumors was on average 67% greater than for luminal tumors (95% confidence interval, 9-156%) and average MRFDG/BF ratio was 53% greater in TN compared with luminal tumors (95% confidence interval, 9-114%; P<0.05 for both). Average BF levels did not differ by subtype (P=0.73). Most luminal tumors showed relatively low MRFDG and BF (and did not achieve pCR); high MRFDG was generally matched with high BF in luminal tumors and predicted pCR. This was not true in TN tumors. CONCLUSION: The relationship between breast tumor metabolism and perfusion differed by subtype. The high MRFDG/BF ratio that predicts poor response to NC was more common in TN tumors. Metabolism and perfusion measures may identify subsets of tumors susceptible and resistant to NC and may help direct targeted therapy. Copyright (c) 2010 AACR.
Authors: Roman Rouzier; Charles M Perou; W Fraser Symmans; Nuhad Ibrahim; Massimo Cristofanilli; Keith Anderson; Kenneth R Hess; James Stec; Mark Ayers; Peter Wagner; Paolo Morandi; Chang Fan; Islam Rabiul; Jeffrey S Ross; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Lajos Pusztai Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-08-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: C B Thompson; D E Bauer; J J Lum; G Hatzivassiliou; W-X Zong; F Zhao; D Ditsworth; M Buzzai; T Lindsten Journal: Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol Date: 2005
Authors: Lisa A Carey; E Claire Dees; Lynda Sawyer; Lisa Gatti; Dominic T Moore; Frances Collichio; David W Ollila; Carolyn I Sartor; Mark L Graham; Charles M Perou Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-04-15 Impact factor: 12.531
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: Shigeto Ueda; Darren Roblyer; Albert Cerussi; Amanda Durkin; Anais Leproux; Ylenia Santoro; Shanshan Xu; Thomas D O'Sullivan; David Hsiang; Rita Mehta; John Butler; Bruce J Tromberg Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2012-07-09 Impact factor: 12.701
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: Nicolaos Palaskas; Steven M Larson; Nikolaus Schultz; Evangelia Komisopoulou; Justin Wong; Dan Rohle; Carl Campos; Nicolas Yannuzzi; Joseph R Osborne; Irina Linkov; Edward R Kastenhuber; Richard Taschereau; Seema B Plaisier; Chris Tran; Adriana Heguy; Hong Wu; Chris Sander; Michael E Phelps; Cameron Brennan; Elisa Port; Jason T Huse; Thomas G Graeber; Ingo K Mellinghoff Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2011-06-06 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: James V Alvarez; George K Belka; Tien-Chi Pan; Chien-Chung Chen; Eric Blankemeyer; Abass Alavi; Joel S Karp; Lewis A Chodosh Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2014-09-19 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Hye Ryoung Koo; Jeong Seon Park; Keon Wook Kang; Nariya Cho; Jung Min Chang; Min Sun Bae; Won Hwa Kim; Su Hyun Lee; Mi Young Kim; Jin You Kim; Mirinae Seo; Woo Kyung Moon Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-10-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ashish Juvekar; Laura N Burga; Hai Hu; Elaine P Lunsford; Yasir H Ibrahim; Judith Balmañà; Anbazhagan Rajendran; Antonella Papa; Katherine Spencer; Costas A Lyssiotis; Caterina Nardella; Pier Paolo Pandolfi; José Baselga; Ralph Scully; John M Asara; Lewis C Cantley; Gerburg M Wulf Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2012-08-22 Impact factor: 39.397