UNLABELLED: Heterogeneity of estrogen receptor (ER) expression may be an important predictor of breast cancer therapeutic response. (18)F-fluoroestradiol PET produces in vivo quantitative measurements of regional estrogen binding in breast cancer tumors. We describe within-patient (site-to-site) and between-patient heterogeneity of lesions in patients scheduled to receive endocrine therapy. METHODS: In 91 patients with a prior ER-positive biopsy, 505 lesions were analyzed for both (18)F-fluoroestradiol and (18)F-FDG uptake and the (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG uptake ratio. Standardized uptake values (SUVs) were recorded for up to 16 lesions per patient, of 1.5 cm or more and visible on (18)F-FDG PET or conventional staging. Linear mixed-effects regression models examined associations between PET parameters and patient or lesion characteristics and estimated variance components. A reader study of SUV measurements for 9 scans further examined sources of within-patient variability. RESULTS: Average (18)F-fluoroestradiol uptake and (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG ratio varied greatly across these patients, despite a history of ER-positive disease: about 37% had low or absent (18)F-fluoroestradiol uptake even with marked (18)F-FDG uptake. (18)F-fluoroestradiol SUV and (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG ratio measurements within patients with multiple lesions were clustered around the patient's average value in most cases. Summarizing these findings, the intraclass correlation coefficient (proportion of total variation that is between-patient) was 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69) for (18)F-fluoroestradiol SUV and 0.65 (95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.73) for the (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG ratio. Some within-patient variation in PET measures (22%-44%) was attributable to interobserver variability as measured by the reader study. A subset of patients had mixed uptake, with widely disparate (18)F-fluoroestradiol SUV or (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG ratio for lesions in the same scan. CONCLUSION: (18)F-fluoroestradiol uptake and the (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG ratio varied greatly between patients but were usually consistent across lesions in the same scan. The average (18)F-fluoroestradiol SUV and (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG ratio for a limited sample of lesions appear to provide a reasonable summary of synchronous ER expression for most patients. However, imaging the entire disease burden remains important to identify the subset of patients with mixed uptake, who may be at a critical point in their disease evolution.
UNLABELLED: Heterogeneity of estrogen receptor (ER) expression may be an important predictor of breast cancer therapeutic response. (18)F-fluoroestradiol PET produces in vivo quantitative measurements of regional estrogen binding in breast cancer tumors. We describe within-patient (site-to-site) and between-patient heterogeneity of lesions in patients scheduled to receive endocrine therapy. METHODS: In 91 patients with a prior ER-positive biopsy, 505 lesions were analyzed for both (18)F-fluoroestradiol and (18)F-FDG uptake and the (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG uptake ratio. Standardized uptake values (SUVs) were recorded for up to 16 lesions per patient, of 1.5 cm or more and visible on (18)F-FDG PET or conventional staging. Linear mixed-effects regression models examined associations between PET parameters and patient or lesion characteristics and estimated variance components. A reader study of SUV measurements for 9 scans further examined sources of within-patient variability. RESULTS: Average (18)F-fluoroestradiol uptake and (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG ratio varied greatly across these patients, despite a history of ER-positive disease: about 37% had low or absent (18)F-fluoroestradiol uptake even with marked (18)F-FDG uptake. (18)F-fluoroestradiol SUV and (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG ratio measurements within patients with multiple lesions were clustered around the patient's average value in most cases. Summarizing these findings, the intraclass correlation coefficient (proportion of total variation that is between-patient) was 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69) for (18)F-fluoroestradiol SUV and 0.65 (95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.73) for the (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG ratio. Some within-patient variation in PET measures (22%-44%) was attributable to interobserver variability as measured by the reader study. A subset of patients had mixed uptake, with widely disparate (18)F-fluoroestradiol SUV or (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG ratio for lesions in the same scan. CONCLUSION: (18)F-fluoroestradiol uptake and the (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG ratio varied greatly between patients but were usually consistent across lesions in the same scan. The average (18)F-fluoroestradiol SUV and (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG ratio for a limited sample of lesions appear to provide a reasonable summary of synchronous ER expression for most patients. However, imaging the entire disease burden remains important to identify the subset of patients with mixed uptake, who may be at a critical point in their disease evolution.
Authors: T Yoshida; H Eguchi; K Nakachi; K Tanimoto; Y Higashi; K Suemasu; Y Iino; Y Morishita; S Hayashi Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: J E Mortimer; F Dehdashti; B A Siegel; K Trinkaus; J A Katzenellenbogen; M J Welch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Laurien D C Hoefnagel; Marc J van de Vijver; Henk-Jan van Slooten; Pieter Wesseling; Jelle Wesseling; Pieter J Westenend; Joost Bart; Cornelis A Seldenrijk; Iris D Nagtegaal; Joost Oudejans; Paul van der Valk; Petra van der Groep; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Elsken van der Wall; Paul J van Diest Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2010-09-23 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Alastair M Thompson; Lee B Jordan; Philip Quinlan; Elizabeth Anderson; Anthony Skene; John A Dewar; Colin A Purdie Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2010-11-08 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Lanell M Peterson; Brenda F Kurland; Erin K Schubert; Jeanne M Link; V K Gadi; Jennifer M Specht; Janet F Eary; Peggy Porter; Lalitha K Shankar; David A Mankoff; Hannah M Linden Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2013-10-30 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Elizabeth M Jaffee; Chi Van Dang; David B Agus; Brian M Alexander; Kenneth C Anderson; Alan Ashworth; Anna D Barker; Roshan Bastani; Sangeeta Bhatia; Jeffrey A Bluestone; Otis Brawley; Atul J Butte; Daniel G Coit; Nancy E Davidson; Mark Davis; Ronald A DePinho; Robert B Diasio; Giulio Draetta; A Lindsay Frazier; Andrew Futreal; Sam S Gambhir; Patricia A Ganz; Levi Garraway; Stanton Gerson; Sumit Gupta; James Heath; Ruth I Hoffman; Cliff Hudis; Chanita Hughes-Halbert; Ramy Ibrahim; Hossein Jadvar; Brian Kavanagh; Rick Kittles; Quynh-Thu Le; Scott M Lippman; David Mankoff; Elaine R Mardis; Deborah K Mayer; Kelly McMasters; Neal J Meropol; Beverly Mitchell; Peter Naredi; Dean Ornish; Timothy M Pawlik; Jeffrey Peppercorn; Martin G Pomper; Derek Raghavan; Christine Ritchie; Sally W Schwarz; Richard Sullivan; Richard Wahl; Jedd D Wolchok; Sandra L Wong; Alfred Yung Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-10-31 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Gary A Ulaner; Komal Jhaveri; Sarat Chandarlapaty; Vaios Hatzoglou; Christopher C Riedl; Jason S Lewis; Audrey Mauguen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-07-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Szeman Ruby Chan; Amy M Fowler; Julie A Allen; Dong Zhou; Carmen S Dence; Terry L Sharp; Nicole M Fettig; Farrokh Dehdashti; John A Katzenellenbogen Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Brenda F Kurland; Lanell M Peterson; Jean H Lee; Erin K Schubert; Erin R Currin; Jeanne M Link; Kenneth A Krohn; David A Mankoff; Hannah M Linden Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Amy M Fowler; Amy S Clark; John A Katzenellenbogen; Hannah M Linden; Farrokh Dehdashti Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 10.057