PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the association of primary tumour (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake with clinical, histopathological and molecular characteristics of breast cancer patients scheduled for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Second, we wished to establish for which patients pretreatment positron emission tomography (PET)/CT could safely be omitted because of low FDG uptake. METHODS: PET/CT was performed in 214 primary stage II or III breast cancer patients in the prone position with hanging breasts. Tumour FDG uptake was qualitatively evaluated to determine the possibility of response monitoring with PET/CT and was quantitatively assessed using maximum standardized uptake values (SUV(max)). FDG uptake was compared with age, TNM stage, histology, hormone and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status, grade, Ki-67 and molecular subtype in univariable and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: In 203 tumours (95 %) FDG uptake was considered sufficient for response monitoring. No subgroup of patients with consistently low tumour FDG uptake could be identified. In a univariable analysis, SUV(max) was significantly higher in patients with distant metastases at staging examination, non-lobular carcinomas, tumours with negative hormone receptors, triple negative tumours, grade 3 tumours, and in tumours with a high proliferation index (Ki-67 expression). After multiple linear regression analysis, triple negative and grade 3 tumours were significantly associated with a higher SUV(max). CONCLUSION: Primary tumour FDG uptake in breast cancer patients scheduled for neoadjuvant chemotherapy is significantly higher in tumours with prognostically unfavourable characteristics. Based on tumour characteristics associated with low tumour FDG uptake, this study was unable to identify a subgroup of patients unlikely to benefit from pretreatment PET/CT.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the association of primary tumour (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake with clinical, histopathological and molecular characteristics of breast cancerpatients scheduled for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Second, we wished to establish for which patients pretreatment positron emission tomography (PET)/CT could safely be omitted because of low FDG uptake. METHODS: PET/CT was performed in 214 primary stage II or III breast cancerpatients in the prone position with hanging breasts. TumourFDG uptake was qualitatively evaluated to determine the possibility of response monitoring with PET/CT and was quantitatively assessed using maximum standardized uptake values (SUV(max)). FDG uptake was compared with age, TNM stage, histology, hormone and humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 status, grade, Ki-67 and molecular subtype in univariable and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: In 203 tumours (95 %) FDG uptake was considered sufficient for response monitoring. No subgroup of patients with consistently low tumourFDG uptake could be identified. In a univariable analysis, SUV(max) was significantly higher in patients with distant metastases at staging examination, non-lobular carcinomas, tumours with negative hormone receptors, triple negative tumours, grade 3 tumours, and in tumours with a high proliferation index (Ki-67 expression). After multiple linear regression analysis, triple negative and grade 3 tumours were significantly associated with a higher SUV(max). CONCLUSION: Primary tumourFDG uptake in breast cancerpatients scheduled for neoadjuvant chemotherapy is significantly higher in tumours with prognostically unfavourable characteristics. Based on tumour characteristics associated with low tumourFDG uptake, this study was unable to identify a subgroup of patients unlikely to benefit from pretreatment PET/CT.
Authors: Claudette E Loo; Marieke E Straver; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Sara H Muller; Jelle Wesseling; Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-01-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Laura J van 't Veer; Hongyue Dai; Marc J van de Vijver; Yudong D He; Augustinus A M Hart; Mao Mao; Hans L Peterse; Karin van der Kooy; Matthew J Marton; Anke T Witteveen; George J Schreiber; Ron M Kerkhoven; Chris Roberts; Peter S Linsley; René Bernards; Stephen H Friend Journal: Nature Date: 2002-01-31 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Henriëtte M E Quarles van Ufford; Harm van Tinteren; Sigrid G Stroobants; Ingrid I Riphagen; Otto S Hoekstra Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-09-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: M E Straver; E J Th Rutgers; S Rodenhuis; S C Linn; C E Loo; J Wesseling; N S Russell; H S A Oldenburg; N Antonini; M T F D Vrancken Peeters Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-04-06 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Joel S Parker; Michael Mullins; Maggie C U Cheang; Samuel Leung; David Voduc; Tammi Vickery; Sherri Davies; Christiane Fauron; Xiaping He; Zhiyuan Hu; John F Quackenbush; Inge J Stijleman; Juan Palazzo; J S Marron; Andrew B Nobel; Elaine Mardis; Torsten O Nielsen; Matthew J Ellis; Charles M Perou; Philip S Bernard Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-02-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gavin C Harris; Helen E Denley; Sarah E Pinder; Andrew H S Lee; Ian O Ellis; Christopher W Elston; Andrew Evans Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Jian Guan; Nan J Xiao; Min Chen; Wen L Zhou; Yao W Zhang; Shuang Wang; Yong M Dai; Lu Li; Yue Zhang; Qin Y Li; Xiang Z Li; Mi Yang; Hu B Wu; Long H Chen; Lai Y Liu Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Hye Ryoung Koo; Jeong Seon Park; Keon Wook Kang; Nariya Cho; Jung Min Chang; Min Sun Bae; Won Hwa Kim; Su Hyun Lee; Mi Young Kim; Jin You Kim; Mirinae Seo; Woo Kyung Moon Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-10-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Brett Marinelli; Carina Espinet-Col; Gary A Ulaner; Heather L McArthur; Mithat Gonen; Maxine Jochelson; Wolfgang A Weber Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-04-24