| Literature DB >> 24294180 |
Louise Wichmann Matthiessen1, Helle Hjorth Johannesen, Kristin Skougaard, Julie Gehl, Helle Westergren Hendel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electrochemotherapy is a local anticancer treatment very efficient for treatment of small cutaneous metastases. The method is now being investigated for large cutaneous recurrences of breast cancer that are often confluent masses of malignant tumour with various degrees of inflammation. To this end 18-Flourine-Flourodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (FDG-PET/CT) could be a method for response evaluation. However, a standard FDG-PET/CT scan cannot differentiate inflammatory tissue from malignant tissue. Dual point time imaging (DTPI) FDG-PET has the potential of doing so. The purpose of this study was to investigate if DTPI FDG-PET/CT could assess response to electrochemotherapy and to assess the optimal timing of imaging. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Within a phase II clinical trial 11 patients with cutaneous recurrences had FDG-PET/CT scans at three time points: 60 min, 120 min and 180 min after FDG injection. The scans were performed before and 3 weeks after electrochemotherapy.Entities:
Keywords: breast cancer; cutaneous metastases; dual time point FDG PET; electrochemotherapy; response assessment
Year: 2013 PMID: 24294180 PMCID: PMC3814280 DOI: 10.2478/raon-2013-0054
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiol Oncol ISSN: 1318-2099 Impact factor: 2.991
FIGURE 1.Large recurrence with varying depth and inflammation on the left chest wall of 68 y female. Left column shows from the top clinical presentation, CT-scan, PET scan at 60 min p.i., PET scan at 120 min p.i. and PET scan 180 min p.i. Right column. Same patients after one treatment. Change in SUVmax in target lesion at baseline compared to follow up was 29.7% at 60 min p.i., 71.2% at 120 min p.i., and 83.1% at 180 min p.i.
Response evaluation with clinical examination, CT and PET/CT-scans
|
| |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7.5 | 6.3 | SD | 10.6 | 6.3 | PR | 2.6 | 2.4 | SMD | 3.1 | 2.4 | SMD | ND | ||
| 2 (a) | 3.7 | 0.0 | CR | 1.4 | 0.0 | CR | 0.6 | 0.0 | CMR | 0.8 | 0.0 | CMR | 0.6 | 0.0 | CMR |
| 2 (b) | 3.2 | 0.0 | CR | 0.7 | 0.0 | CR | 0.7 | 0.0 | CMR | 0.6 | 0.0 | CMR | 0.5 | 0.0 | CMR |
| 3 | 6.5 | 6.5 | SD | 1.0 | 1.3 | PD | 1.6 | 2.1 | PMD | 1.5 | 3.0 | PMD | 2.6 | 4.5 | PMD |
| 4 | 10.0 | 10.0 | SD | 11.0 | 10.5 | SD | 22.6 | 19.3 | SMD | 30.7 | 25.6 | SMD | 34.9 | 23.4 | PMR |
| 5 (a) | 12.0 | 9.5 | SD | 11.8 | 9.1 | SD | 11.7 | 9.6 | SMD | 16.6 | 14.8 | SMD | 19.9 | 14.0 | PMR |
| 5 (b) | 3.5 | 2.5 | SD | 3.9 | 2.7 | PR | 11.4 | 4.0 | PMR | 14.1 | 5.5 | PMR | 17.5 | 6.6 | PMR |
| 5 (c) | 3.5 | 2.5 | SD | 3.9 | 1.2 | PR | 8.3 | 2.3 | PMR | 10.3 | 3.2 | PMR | 12.7 | 3.4 | PMR |
| 5 (d) | 6.0 | 5.0 | SD | 7.1 | 4.3 | PR | 9.6 | 9.2 | SMD | 13.6 | 11.9 | SMD | 15.6 | 12.5 | SMD |
| 5 (e) | 3.5 | 1.5 | PR | 4.2 | 1.2 | PR | 10 | 2.3 | PMR | 12.8 | 3.2 | PMR | 14.2 | 3.0 | PMR |
| 6 | 9.0 | 11.0 | PD | 10.0 | 14.8 | PD | 11.8 | 10.9 | SMD | 15.9 | 14.9 | SMD | 16.6 | 16.5 | SMD |
| 8 | 11.0 | 12.0 | SD | 11.9 | 8.0 | PR | 6.7 | 4.7 | PMR | 7.9 | 2.3 | PMR | 9.1 | 1.5 | PMR |
| 9 | 3.2 | 3.2 | SD | 2.4 | 2.5 | SD | 5.0 | 2.8 | PMR | 6.5 | 3.2 | PMR | 6.7 | 3.2 | PMR |
| 10 | 25.0 | 16.5 | PR | 19.7 | 10.8 | PR | 5.6 | 4.6 | SMD | 7.1 | 5.6 | SMD | 10.5 | 5.6 | PMR |
| 12 | 9.0 | 5.5 | PR | 15.2 | 16.0 | SD | 17.9 | 8.9 | PMR | 21.8 | 10.3 | PMR | 25.0 | 3.9 | PMR |
| 15 | 20.0 | 20.0 | SD | 16.3 | 13.7 | SD | 12.4 | 8.1 | PMR | 13.5 | 9.2 | PMR | 13.9 | 10.8 | SMD |
|
| |||||||||||||||
| 8.5 | 7.0 | 8.2 | 6.4 | 8.7 | 5.7 | 11.0 | 7.2 | 13.4 | 7.3 | ||||||
| 6.3 | 5.8 | 6.0 | 5.5 | 6.1 | 5.0 | 8.2 | 6.9 | 9.2 | 6.8 | ||||||
Responses recorded for single lesions evaluated with clinical evaluation, CT and PET/CT scans at 60, 120 and 180 minutes after FDG injection are presented. For patient number 4 and 10 the observed response evaluated with PET/CT changes from SMD at 60 and 120 min to PMR at 180 min. For patient number 8 the observed response evaluated with PET/CT changes from SMD at 60 min to PMR at 120 and 180 min. (CMR: complete metabolic response, PMR: Partial metabolic response, SMD: Stable metabolic disease, PMD: progressive metabolic disease). ND: Not done
Patient numbers refers to numbers given consecutively when patients were included in the trial.
Scan at 180 min was not performed at baseline
SUVmax values before and after treatment
| 60 min | 120 min | 180 min | RI120–60 | RI180–60 | RI180–120 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment (n = 16) | 8.7 ± 6.1 | 11.0 ± 8.2 | 13.4 ± 9.2 | 22.5% ± 14.7 % | 41.1% ± 29.6 % | 15.3% ± 24.4% |
| Background before treatment (n=11) | 1.7 ± 0.3 | 1.4 ± 0.2 | 1.3 ± 0.4 | −16.3% ± 12.5% | −27.3% ± 29.7% | −9.0% ± 40.7% |
| After treatment (n =16) | 5.7 ± 5.0 | 7.2 ± 6.9 | 7.3 ± 6.5 | 30.3% ± 16.8% | 26.8% ± 41.1% | −1.3% ± 32.5% |
| Background after treatment (n =11) | 1.8 ± 0.4 | 1.5 ± 0.4 | 1.4 ± 0.5 | −16.3%± 16.7% | −24.2% ± 24.6% | −7.0% ± 33.7% |
Table 2 shows the SUVmax values for lesions before and after treatment with electrochemotherapy. The corresponding values for background measured as SUVmax in a 1.2 cm spherical ROI in the Aortic arch is also shown. Eleven patients with 16 target lesions were scanned. All data are presented as mean ± S.D.
RI: Retention index.; RI120–60: (SUV60min-SUV120min)/SUV60min×100%; RI180–60: (SUV60min-SUV180min)/SUV60min×100%; RI180–120: (SUV120min-SUV180min)/SUV120min×100%
FIGURE 2.Change in SUVmax over time in target lesions and background. There was significant increase in mean SUVmax over time in target lesions before treatment wheras the mean SUVmax in target lesions after treatment stabilized at 120 min after FDG injection. Mean SUVmax in background (measused in the aortic arch) did not increase over time.