Literature DB >> 21960111

Is 18F-FDG PET accurate to predict neoadjuvant therapy response in breast cancer? A meta-analysis.

Yuting Wang1, Chengpeng Zhang, Jianjun Liu, Gang Huang.   

Abstract

Clinical evidence regarding the value of (18)F-FDG PET for therapy responses assessment in breast cancer is increasing. The objective of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of (18)F-FDG PET in predicting responses to neoadjuvant therapies with meta-analysis and explore its optimal regimen for clinical use. Articles in English language relating to the accuracy of (18)F-FDG PET for this utility were retrieved. Methodological quality was assessed by QUADAS tool. Pooled estimation and subgroup analysis data were obtained by statistical analysis. Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria and involved 920 pathologically confirmed patients in total (mean age 49.8 years, all female). Methodological quality was relatively high. To predict histopathological response in primary breast lesions by PET, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic odds ratio were 84% (95% CI, 78-88%), 66% (95% CI, 62-70%), 50% (95% CI, 44-55%), 91% (95% CI, 87-94%), and 11.90 (95% CI, 6.33-22.36), respectively. In regional lymph nodes, sensitivity and NPV of PET were 92% (95% CI, 83-97%) and 88% (95% CI, 76-95%), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that performing a post-therapy (18)F-FDG PET early (after the 1st or 2nd cycle of chemotherapy) was significantly better than later (accuracy 76% vs. 65%, P = 0.001). Furthermore, the best correlation with pathology was yielded by employing a reduction rate (RR) cutoff value of standardized uptake value between 55 and 65%. (18)F-FDG PET is useful to predict neoadjuvant therapy response in breast cancer. However, the relatively low specificity and PPV still call for caution. It is suggested to perform PET in an earlier course of therapy and use RR cutoff value between 55 and 65%, which might potentially identify non-responders early. However, further prospective studies are warranted to assess this regimen and adequately position PET in treatment management.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21960111     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1780-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  46 in total

1.  Whither the PET scan? The role of PET imaging in the staging and treatment of breast cancer.

Authors:  Alessandra Gennari; Arnoldo Piccardo; Vania Altrinetti; Davide Corradengo; Giampiero Villavecchia; Andrea De Censi
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 5.075

2.  Role of maximum standardized uptake value in fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography predicts malignancy grade and prognosis of operable breast cancer: a multi-institute study.

Authors:  Takayuki Kadoya; Kenjiro Aogi; Sachiko Kiyoto; Norio Masumoto; Yoshifumi Sugawara; Morihito Okada
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-09-13       Impact factor: 4.872

3.  Assessment of tumor response to chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer using (18)F-FLT: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sheng-Ming Deng; Wei Zhang; Bin Zhang; Yi-Wei Wu
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 5.087

Review 4.  The accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in predicting the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Fangfang Tian; Guohua Shen; Yunfu Deng; Wei Diao; Zhiyun Jia
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-05-05       Impact factor: 5.315

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.  ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in the early prediction of pathological response in aggressive subtypes of breast cancer: review of the literature and recommendations for use in clinical trials.

Authors:  David Groheux; David Mankoff; Marc Espié; Elif Hindié
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-01-13       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 7.  Management of large mediastinal masses: surgical and anesthesiological considerations.

Authors:  Wilson W L Li; Wim Jan P van Boven; Jouke T Annema; Susanne Eberl; Houke M Klomp; Bas A J M de Mol
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 2.895

8.  The use of breast imaging for predicting response to neoadjuvant lapatinib, trastuzumab and their combination in HER2-positive breast cancer: Results from Neo-ALTTO.

Authors:  S Di Cosimo; C Campbell; H A Azim; G Galli; G Bregni; G Curigliano; C Criscitiello; M Izquierdo; L de la Pena; D Fumagalli; L Fein; J Vinholes; W M J Ng; M Colleoni; A Ferro; B J Naume; A Patel; J Huober; M J Piccart-Gebhart; J Baselga; E de Azambuja
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2017-12-08       Impact factor: 9.162

9.  The combination of FDG PET and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI improves the prediction of disease-free survival in patients with advanced breast cancer after the first cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Authors:  Ilhan Lim; Woo Chul Noh; Jihyun Park; Ji Ae Park; Hyun-Ah Kim; Eun-Kyu Kim; Ko Woon Park; Seung Sook Lee; Eun Young You; Kyeong Min Kim; Byung Hyun Byun; Byung Ii Kim; Chang Woon Choi; Sang Moo Lim
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2014-06-14       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 10.  Current approaches for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.

Authors:  Roisin M Connolly; Vered Stearns
Journal:  Eur J Pharmacol       Date:  2013-03-29       Impact factor: 4.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.