Literature DB >> 21364034

PET tumor metabolism in locally advanced breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: value of static versus kinetic measures of fluorodeoxyglucose uptake.

Lisa K Dunnwald1, Robert K Doot, Jennifer M Specht, Julie R Gralow, Georgiana K Ellis, Robert B Livingston, Hannah M Linden, Vijayakrishna K Gadi, Brenda F Kurland, Erin K Schubert, Mark Muzi, David A Mankoff.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Changes in tumor metabolism from positron emission tomography (PET) in locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC) are predictive of pathologic response. Serial dynamic [(18)F]-FDG (fluorodeoxyglucose) PET scans were used to compare kinetic parameters with the standardized uptake value (SUV) as predictors of pathologic response, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). EXPERIMENTAL
DESIGN: Seventy-five LABC patients underwent FDG PET prior to and at midpoint of NC. FDG delivery (K(1)), FDG flux (K(i)), and SUV measures were calculated and compared by clinical and pathologic tumor characteristics using regression methods and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Associations between K(1), K(i), and SUV and DFS and OS were evaluated using the Cox proportional hazards model.
RESULTS: Tumors that were hormone receptor negative, high grade, highly proliferative, or of ductal histology had higher FDG K(i) and SUV values; on an average, FDG K(1) did not differ systematically by tumor features. Predicting pathologic response in conjunction with estrogen receptor (ER) and axillary lymph node positivity, kinetic measures (AUC = 0.97) were more robust predictors than SUV (AUC = 0.84, P = 0.005). Changes in K(1) and K(i) predicted both DFS and OS, whereas changes in SUV predicted OS only. In multivariate modeling, only changes in K(1) remained an independent prognosticator of DFS and OS.
CONCLUSION: Kinetic measures of FDG PET for LABC patients treated with NC accurately measured treatment response and predicted outcome compared with static SUV measures, suggesting that kinetic analysis may hold advantage of static uptake measures for response assessment. ©2011 AACR.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21364034      PMCID: PMC3086719          DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2649

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   12.531


  40 in total

1.  Anatomy of SUV. Standardized uptake value.

Authors:  S C Huang
Journal:  Nucl Med Biol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.408

2.  Quantitative positron emission tomography imaging to measure tumor response to therapy: what is the best method?

Authors:  David A Mankoff; Mark Muzi; Kenneth A Krohn
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2003 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.488

Review 3.  How should we analyse FDG PET studies for monitoring tumour response?

Authors:  Adriaan A Lammertsma; Corneline J Hoekstra; Giuseppe Giaccone; Otto S Hoekstra
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  Imaging radiotracer model parameters in PET: a mixture analysis approach.

Authors:  F O'Sullivan
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 10.048

5.  Monitoring primary breast cancer throughout chemotherapy using FDG-PET.

Authors:  Garry M McDermott; Andrew Welch; Roger T Staff; Fiona J Gilbert; Lutz Schweiger; Scott I K Semple; Tim A D Smith; Andrew W Hutcheon; Iain D Miller; Ian C Smith; Steven D Heys
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2006-08-09       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Glucose metabolism of breast cancer assessed by 18F-FDG PET: histologic and immunohistochemical tissue analysis.

Authors:  N Avril; M Menzel; J Dose; M Schelling; W Weber; F Jänicke; W Nathrath; M Schwaiger
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 10.057

7.  Tumor metabolic rates in sarcoma using FDG PET.

Authors:  J F Eary; D A Mankoff
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 10.057

8.  18F-FDG kinetics in locally advanced breast cancer: correlation with tumor blood flow and changes in response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

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

9.  Blood flow and metabolism in locally advanced breast cancer: relationship to response to therapy.

Authors:  David A Mankoff; Lisa K Dunnwald; Julie R Gralow; Georgiana K Ellis; Aaron Charlop; Thomas J Lawton; Erin K Schubert; Jeffrey Tseng; Robert B Livingston
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 10.057

10.  Dynamic and static approaches to quantifying 18F-FDG uptake for measuring cancer response to therapy, including the effect of granulocyte CSF.

Authors:  Robert K Doot; Lisa K Dunnwald; Erin K Schubert; Mark Muzi; Lanell M Peterson; Paul E Kinahan; Brenda F Kurland; David A Mankoff
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2007-05-15       Impact factor: 10.057

View more
  42 in total

1.  A phase Ib study of preoperative lapatinib, paclitaxel, and gemcitabine combination therapy in women with HER2 positive early breast cancer.

Authors:  In Hae Park; Keun Seok Lee; Han-Sung Kang; Seok Won Kim; Seeyoun Lee; So-Youn Jung; Youngmee Kwon; Kyung Hwan Shin; Kyounglan Ko; Byung-Ho Nam; Jungsil Ro
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 3.850

Review 2.  Importance of quantification for the analysis of PET data in oncology: review of current methods and trends for the future.

Authors:  Giampaolo Tomasi; Federico Turkheimer; Eric Aboagye
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 3.488

3.  Practical Methods for Estimating Metabolic Flux (Ki) to Assess Response to Therapy via Static PET Scans.

Authors:  Robert K Doot
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2019-01-25       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 4.  Dynamic whole-body PET imaging: principles, potentials and applications.

Authors:  Arman Rahmim; Martin A Lodge; Nicolas A Karakatsanis; Vladimir Y Panin; Yun Zhou; Alan McMillan; Steve Cho; Habib Zaidi; Michael E Casey; Richard L Wahl
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2018-09-29       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 5.  Role of positron emission tomography for the monitoring of response to therapy in breast cancer.

Authors:  Olivier Humbert; Alexandre Cochet; Bruno Coudert; Alina Berriolo-Riedinger; Salim Kanoun; François Brunotte; Pierre Fumoleau
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2015-01-05

Review 6.  Quantitative assessment of dynamic PET imaging data in cancer imaging.

Authors:  Mark Muzi; Finbarr O'Sullivan; David A Mankoff; Robert K Doot; Larry A Pierce; Brenda F Kurland; Hannah M Linden; Paul E Kinahan
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2012-07-21       Impact factor: 2.546

7.  Getting the Most out of 18F-FDG PET Scans: The Predictive Value of 18F-FDG PET-Derived Blood Flow Estimates for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Robert K Doot
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2016-06-03       Impact factor: 10.057

8.  Design considerations for using PET as a response measure in single site and multicenter clinical trials.

Authors:  Robert K Doot; Brenda F Kurland; Paul E Kinahan; David A Mankoff
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-11-21       Impact factor: 3.173

9.  An analysis of whole body tracer kinetics in dynamic PET studies with application to image-based blood input function extraction.

Authors:  Jian Huang; Finbarr O'Sullivan
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 10.048

10.  Exploring temporospatial changes in glucose metabolic disorder, learning, and memory dysfunction in a rat model of diffuse axonal injury.

Authors:  Jia Li; Lei Gu; Dong-Fu Feng; Fang Ding; Guangyao Zhu; Jiandong Rong
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 5.269

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.