PURPOSE: To explore the potential complementary value of PET/CT and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in predicting pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) of breast cancer and the dependency on breast cancer subtype. METHODS: We performed (18)F-FDG PET/CT and MRI examinations before and during NAC. The imaging features evaluated on both examinations included baseline and changes in (18)F-FDG maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) on PET/CT, and tumour morphology and contrast uptake kinetics on MRI. The outcome measure was a (near) pathological complete response ((near-)pCR) after surgery. Receiver operating characteristic curves with area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate the relationships between patient, tumour and imaging characteristics and tumour responses. RESULTS: Of 93 patients, 43 achieved a (near-)pCR. The responses varied among the different breast cancer subtypes. On univariate analysis the following variables were significantly associated with (near-)pCR: age (p = 0.033), breast cancer subtype (p < 0.001), relative change in SUVmax on PET/CT (p < 0.001) and relative change in largest tumour diameter on MRI (p < 0.001). The AUC for the relative reduction in SUVmax on PET/CT was 0.78 (95% CI 0.68-0.88), and for the relative reduction in tumour diameter at late enhancement on MRI was 0.79 (95% CI 0.70-0.89). The AUC increased to 0.90 (95% CI 0.83-0.96) in the final multivariate model with PET/CT, MRI and breast cancer subtype combined (p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: PET/CT and MRI showed comparable value for monitoring response during NAC. Combined use of PET/CT and MRI had complementary potential. Research with more patients is required to further elucidate the dependency on breast cancer subtype.
PURPOSE: To explore the potential complementary value of PET/CT and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in predicting pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) of breast cancer and the dependency on breast cancer subtype. METHODS: We performed (18)F-FDG PET/CT and MRI examinations before and during NAC. The imaging features evaluated on both examinations included baseline and changes in (18)F-FDG maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) on PET/CT, and tumour morphology and contrast uptake kinetics on MRI. The outcome measure was a (near) pathological complete response ((near-)pCR) after surgery. Receiver operating characteristic curves with area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate the relationships between patient, tumour and imaging characteristics and tumour responses. RESULTS: Of 93 patients, 43 achieved a (near-)pCR. The responses varied among the different breast cancer subtypes. On univariate analysis the following variables were significantly associated with (near-)pCR: age (p = 0.033), breast cancer subtype (p < 0.001), relative change in SUVmax on PET/CT (p < 0.001) and relative change in largest tumour diameter on MRI (p < 0.001). The AUC for the relative reduction in SUVmax on PET/CT was 0.78 (95% CI 0.68-0.88), and for the relative reduction in tumour diameter at late enhancement on MRI was 0.79 (95% CI 0.70-0.89). The AUC increased to 0.90 (95% CI 0.83-0.96) in the final multivariate model with PET/CT, MRI and breast cancer subtype combined (p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: PET/CT and MRI showed comparable value for monitoring response during NAC. Combined use of PET/CT and MRI had complementary potential. Research with more patients is required to further elucidate the dependency on breast cancer subtype.
Authors: Kenneth G A Gilhuijs; Eline E Deurloo; Sara H Muller; Johannes L Peterse; Leo J Schultze Kool Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 11.105
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: O Humbert; A Berriolo-Riedinger; J M Riedinger; B Coudert; L Arnould; A Cochet; C Loustalot; P Fumoleau; F Brunotte Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-04-12 Impact factor: 32.976
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: J Dose-Schwarz; R Tiling; S Avril-Sassen; S Mahner; A Lebeau; C Weber; M Schwaiger; F Jänicke; M Untch; N Avril Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: L S Rigter; C E Loo; S C Linn; G S Sonke; E van Werkhoven; E H Lips; H A Warnars; P K Doll; A Bruining; I A Mandjes; M J Vrancken Peeters; J Wesseling; K G Gilhuijs; S Rodenhuis Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Sara Sheikhbahaei; Tyler J Trahan; Jennifer Xiao; Mehdi Taghipour; Esther Mena; Roisin M Connolly; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-07-08
Authors: Ella F Jones; Kimberly M Ray; Wen Li; Youngho Seo; Benjamin L Franc; Amy J Chien; Laura J Esserman; Miguel H Pampaloni; Bonnie N Joe; Nola M Hylton Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2016-12-29 Impact factor: 3.225