PURPOSE: The purpose of this pilot study was to assess whether outcome in metastatic or recurrent breast cancer patients is related to metabolic response to endocrine therapy determined by (18)F-FDG PET/CT. METHODS: The study group comprised 22 patients with breast cancer (age 58 ± 11 years, mean ± SD) who were scheduled to receive endocrine therapy. They were systematically assessed by PET/CT at baseline and after a mean of 10 ± 4 weeks for evaluation of response after induction. All patients demonstrated FDG-avid lesions on the baseline PET/CT scan. The metabolic response was assessed according to EORTC criteria and based on the mean difference in SUV(max) between the two PET/CT scans, and the patients were classified into four groups: complete or partial metabolic response, or stable or progressive metabolic disease (CMR, PMR, SMD and PMD, respectively). All patients were followed in our institution. RESULTS: Metastatic sites were localized in bone (n = 15), lymph nodes (n = 11), chest wall (n = 3), breast (n = 5), lung (n = 3), soft tissue (n = 1) and liver (n = 1). PMR was observed in 11 patients (50%), SMD in 5 (23%) and PMD in 6 (27%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) times were 20, 27 and 6 months in the PMR, SMD and PMD groups, respectively. PFS in the SMD group differed from that in the PMR and SMD groups (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Metabolic response assessed by FDG PET/CT imaging in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy is predictive of the patients' PFS.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this pilot study was to assess whether outcome in metastatic or recurrent breast cancerpatients is related to metabolic response to endocrine therapy determined by (18)F-FDG PET/CT. METHODS: The study group comprised 22 patients with breast cancer (age 58 ± 11 years, mean ± SD) who were scheduled to receive endocrine therapy. They were systematically assessed by PET/CT at baseline and after a mean of 10 ± 4 weeks for evaluation of response after induction. All patients demonstrated FDG-avid lesions on the baseline PET/CT scan. The metabolic response was assessed according to EORTC criteria and based on the mean difference in SUV(max) between the two PET/CT scans, and the patients were classified into four groups: complete or partial metabolic response, or stable or progressive metabolic disease (CMR, PMR, SMD and PMD, respectively). All patients were followed in our institution. RESULTS: Metastatic sites were localized in bone (n = 15), lymph nodes (n = 11), chest wall (n = 3), breast (n = 5), lung (n = 3), soft tissue (n = 1) and liver (n = 1). PMR was observed in 11 patients (50%), SMD in 5 (23%) and PMD in 6 (27%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) times were 20, 27 and 6 months in the PMR, SMD and PMD groups, respectively. PFS in the SMD group differed from that in the PMR and SMD groups (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Metabolic response assessed by FDG PET/CT imaging in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy is predictive of the patients' PFS.
Authors: Betty S Pio; Cecilia K Park; Richard Pietras; Wei-Ann Hsueh; Nagichettiar Satyamurthy; Mark D Pegram; Johannes Czernin; Michael E Phelps; Daniel H S Silverman Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Hannah M Linden; Svetlana A Stekhova; Jeanne M Link; Julie R Gralow; Robert B Livingston; Georgiana K Ellis; Philip H Petra; Lanell M Peterson; Erin K Schubert; Lisa K Dunnwald; Kenneth A Krohn; David A Mankoff Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-05-08 Impact factor: 44.544
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
Authors: M J Ellis; A Coop; B Singh; L Mauriac; A Llombert-Cussac; F Jänicke; W R Miller; D B Evans; M Dugan; C Brady; E Quebe-Fehling; M Borgs Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-09-15 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: 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: Tsuyoshi Hamaoka; John E Madewell; Donald A Podoloff; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Naoto T Ueno Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-07-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jordi Rodon; Irene Braña; Lillian L Siu; Maja J De Jonge; Natasha Homji; David Mills; Emmanuelle Di Tomaso; Celine Sarr; Lucia Trandafir; Cristian Massacesi; Ferry Eskens; Johanna C Bendell Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2014-03-21 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Katja Pinker; Christopher C Riedl; Leonard Ong; Maxine Jochelson; Gary A Ulaner; Heather McArthur; Maura Dickler; Mithad Gönen; Wolfgang A Weber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Heinrich Magometschnigg; Katja Pinker; Thomas Helbich; Anita Brandstetter; Margaretha Rudas; Thomas Nakuz; Pascal Baltzer; Wolfgang Wadsak; Marcus Hacker; Michael Weber; Peter Dubsky; Martin Filipits Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Christopher C Riedl; Katja Pinker; Gary A Ulaner; Leonard T Ong; Pascal Baltzer; Maxine S Jochelson; Heather L McArthur; Mithat Gönen; Maura Dickler; Wolfgang A Weber Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Annelieke E C A B Willemsen; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Maaike de Boer; Jolien Tol; Yvonne Kamm; Paul C de Jong; Marianne A Jonker; Allert H Vos; Willem Grootjans; Johannes W B de Groot; Sasja F Mulder; Erik H J G Aarntzen; Winald R Gerritsen; Carla M L van Herpen; Nielka P van Erp Journal: Target Oncol Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 4.493
Authors: Stefanie Avril; Raymond F Muzic; Donna Plecha; Bryan J Traughber; Shaveta Vinayak; Norbert Avril Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 10.057