| Literature DB >> 22011459 |
Bhumsuk Keam1, Seock-Ah Im, Youngil Koh, Sae-Won Han, Do-Youn Oh, Nariya Cho, Jee Hyun Kim, Wonshik Han, Keon Wook Kang, Woo Kyung Moon, Tae-You Kim, In Ae Park, Dong-Young Noh, June-Key Chung, Yung-Jue Bang.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was aimed 1) to investigate the predictive value of FDG PET/CT (fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography) for histopathologic response and 2) to explore the results of FDG PET/CT by molecular phenotypes of breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22011459 PMCID: PMC3224348 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-11-452
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Figure 1Schematic flow of the neoadjuvant chemotherapy and response assessed by FDG PET/CT, breast MRI and chest CT. Abbreviations: DD, docetaxel+doxorubicin; FDG PET, fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography; CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; USG, ultrasonography.
Baseline characteristics of 78 patients
| Characteristics | No. of Pt (%) |
|---|---|
| Median age (range) | 45 (range 29-69) |
| Age < 50 | 56 (71.8) |
| Age ≥50 | 22 (28.2) |
| Performance status | |
| ECOG 0 | 23 (29.5) |
| ECOG 1 | 55 (70.5) |
| Pathologic characteristics | |
| Invasive ductal carcinoma | 74 (94.9) |
| Others | 4 (5.1) |
| Initial clinical stage | |
| IIA | 1 (1.3) |
| IIB | 11 (14.1) |
| IIIA | 47 (60.3) |
| IIIB | 13 (16.7) |
| IIIC | 6 (7.7) |
| Inflammatory breast cancer | |
| Yes | 3 (3.8) |
| No | 75 (96.2) |
| Type of surgery | |
| Breast conserving | 44 (56.4) |
| Mastectomy | 34 (43.6) |
| Adjuvant hormonal therapy | |
| Yes | 52 (66.7) |
| No | 26 (33.3) |
| Adjuvant radiation therapy | |
| Yes | 66 (84.6) |
| No | 12 (15.4) |
ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Results to docetaxel plus doxorubicin neoadjuvant chemotherapy
| Response | No. of Pts (%) |
|---|---|
| Histopathologic response | |
| Pathologic complete response | 4 (5.1) |
| Minimal residual disease | 10 (12.8) |
| Gross residual disease | 64 (82.1) |
Figure 2Receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) analysis, determine optimal cut-off values of ΔSUV%; Area under the curve ROC was 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.64-0.93).
Correlation between response and SUV values.
| Response | Pre-SUV | Post-SUV | ΔSUV% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Histopathologic response | |||
| Responders | 7.3 ± 4.2 | 2.2 ± 1.9 | 63 ± 48 |
| Non-responders | 7.6 ± 4.4 | 4.3 ± 2.7 | 34 ± 47 |
SUV, standard uptake value
P-value based on the Mann-Whitney U test, presuming to be non-parametric statistics
Correlation between metabolic, and histopathologic response.
| Response | Histopathologic responders * | Histopathologic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Metabolic responders | |||
| Responders | 12 (32.4%) | 25 (67.6%) | 0.002 |
| Non-responders | 2 (4.9%) | 39 (95.1%) | |
| For histopathologic responders | For histopathologic nonresponder | ||
| Sensitivity | 85.7% (12/14) | 60.9% (39/64) | |
| Specificity | 60.9% (39/64) | 85.7% (12/14) | |
| Positive predictive value | 32.4% (12/37) | 95.1% (39/41) | |
| Negative predictive value | 95.1% (39/41) | 32.4% (12/37) | |
* Pathologic complete response or minimal residual disease were regarded as histopathologic responders, Gross residual disease were regarded as histopathologic non-responders.
† P-value based on the Fisher's exact test
SUV and changes in SUV based on molecular phenotypes
| No. of Pts | Pre-SUV * | Post-SUV * | ΔSUV% * | HPR (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ER | |||||
| Positive | 38 | 6.4 ± 3.3 | 3.7 ± 2.1 | 30 ± 57 | 3 (7.9) |
| Negative | 40 | 8.6 ± 4.9 | 4.1 ± 3.1 | 48 ± 37 | 11 (27.5) |
| PR | |||||
| Positive | 30 | 6.5 ± 3.3 | 3.5 ± 2.4 | 36 ± 63 | 3 (10.0) |
| Negative | 48 | 8.2 ± 4.8 | 4.2 ± 2.8 | 42 ± 37 | 11 (22.9) |
| HER2 | |||||
| Positive | 17 | 6.8 ± 3.2 | 3.2 ± 2.6 | 51 ± 36 | 5 (29.4%) |
| Negative | 61 | 7.7 ± 4.6 | 4.1 ± 2.7 | 36 ± 51 | 9 (14.8%) |
| Triple negativity | |||||
| TNBC | 26 | 9.8 ± 5.3 | 5.0 ± 3.0 | 42 ± 35 | 6 (23.1) |
| Non-TNBC | 52 | 6.4 ± 3.2 | 3.4 ± 2.3 | 38 ± 54 | 8 (15.4) |
| Molecular phenotype | |||||
| Luminal A/B | 40 | 6.3 ± 3.3 | 3.6 ± 2.2 | 33 ± 57 | 3 (7.5) |
| HER2 | 12 | 6.6 ± 3.2 | 2.8 ± 2.6 | 56 ± 39 | 5 (41.7) |
| TNBC | 26 | 9.8 ± 5.3 | 5.0 ± 3.0 | 42 ± 35 | 6 (23.1) |
| Ki-67 | |||||
| Low expression | 30 | 6.2 ± 4.1 | 3.6 ± 2.6 | 27 ± 65 | 4 (13.3) |
| High expression | 41 | 8.5 ± 4.4 | 4.0 ± 2.8 | 49 ± 33 | 10 (24.4) |
HPR, histopathologic responder; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; TNBC, triple negative breast cancer.
* Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation.
† P-values are based on Chi square or Fisher's exact test.
‡ P-values are based on Kruskal-Wallis test, otherwise P-values are based on Mann-Whitney U test, presuming to be non-parametric statistics.
Low expression of Ki-67 was defined as ≤ 5%, and 7 patients were not available for Ki-67 results.
Figure 3Box flows comparing serial FDG PET/CT results according to molecular phenotypes based on immunohistochemistry. ER negative phenotype showed higher pre-SUV (A) and Δ SUV% (B) than ER positive phenotype. In patients with high Ki-67 expression, a similar phenomenon was observed in that pre-SUV (C) and Δ SUV% (D) was higher than the low Ki-67 expression group. In triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), pre-SUV (E) was higher than non-TNBC; however, Δ SUV% (F) was not different.