BACKGROUND: To assess the usefulness of positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography using (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG PET/CT) for optimizing chemotherapy during neoadjuvant chemotherapy for primary breast cancer. METHODS: One hundred and eight patients (110 tumors) with breast cancer (≥2 cm, stages II and III) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy consisting of an anthracycline-based regimen and taxane. The maximal value of the baseline standardized uptake value (SUV) and the change in SUV after four cycles of an anthracycline-based regimen relative to baseline SUV were assessed for predicting pathological complete response (pCR) after sequential taxane. RESULTS: Tumors with pCR had significantly higher baseline SUV (9.3 ± 3.7 SD) compared to those with non-pCR (7.2 ± 3.8 SD) (p = 0.02), but there was a considerable overlap between two groups. On PET scan after four cycles of chemotherapy, thirty-three patients (33.7%) with a 72.1% or greater reduction in SUV were considered as responders and the performance in predicting pCR had a sensitivity of 88.9% and specificity of 78.7%. CONCLUSION: The baseline SUV could not be a useful indicator for predicting pCR due to the wide range in sensitivity. On the other hand, a relative change in SUV after completion of an anthracycline-based regimen could be useful for predicting pCR.
BACKGROUND: To assess the usefulness of positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography using (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG PET/CT) for optimizing chemotherapy during neoadjuvant chemotherapy for primary breast cancer. METHODS: One hundred and eight patients (110 tumors) with breast cancer (≥2 cm, stages II and III) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy consisting of an anthracycline-based regimen and taxane. The maximal value of the baseline standardized uptake value (SUV) and the change in SUV after four cycles of an anthracycline-based regimen relative to baseline SUV were assessed for predicting pathological complete response (pCR) after sequential taxane. RESULTS:Tumors with pCR had significantly higher baseline SUV (9.3 ± 3.7 SD) compared to those with non-pCR (7.2 ± 3.8 SD) (p = 0.02), but there was a considerable overlap between two groups. On PET scan after four cycles of chemotherapy, thirty-three patients (33.7%) with a 72.1% or greater reduction in SUV were considered as responders and the performance in predicting pCR had a sensitivity of 88.9% and specificity of 78.7%. CONCLUSION: The baseline SUV could not be a useful indicator for predicting pCR due to the wide range in sensitivity. On the other hand, a relative change in SUV after completion of an anthracycline-based regimen could be useful for predicting pCR.
Authors: Aman U Buzdar; Vicente Valero; Nuhad K Ibrahim; Deborah Francis; Kristine R Broglio; Richard L Theriault; Lajos Pusztai; Marjorie C Green; Sonja E Singletary; Kelly K Hunt; Aysegul A Sahin; Francisco Esteva; William F Symmans; Michael S Ewer; Thomas A Buchholz; Gabriel N Hortobagyi Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-01-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Abigail S Caudle; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Kelly K Hunt; Ping Liu; Lajos Pusztai; W Fraser Symmans; Henry M Kuerer; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Funda Meric-Bernstam Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
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: 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: 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: 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: I Craig Henderson; Donald A Berry; George D Demetri; Constance T Cirrincione; Lori J Goldstein; Silvana Martino; James N Ingle; M Robert Cooper; Daniel F Hayes; Katherine H Tkaczuk; Gini Fleming; James F Holland; David B Duggan; John T Carpenter; Emil Frei; Richard L Schilsky; William C Wood; Hyman B Muss; Larry Norton Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ana María García Vicente; Miguel Ángel Cruz Mora; Antonio Alberto León Martín; María Del Mar Muñoz Sánchez; Fernanda Relea Calatayud; Ober Van Gómez López; Ruth Espinosa Aunión; Ana Gonzalez Ageitos; Angel Soriano Castrejón Journal: Tumour Biol Date: 2014-08-20
Authors: Young Jin Choi; Young Duck Shin; Yoon Hee Kang; Moon Soo Lee; Min Koo Lee; Byung Sun Cho; Yoon Jung Kang; Ju Seung Park Journal: J Breast Cancer Date: 2012-12-31 Impact factor: 3.588