Jin You Kim1, Suck Hong Lee, Suk Kim, Taewoo Kang, Young Tae Bae. 1. Department of Radiology, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine and Medical Research Institute, 1-10, Ami-Dong, Seo-gu, Busan, 602-739, Korea, youdosa@naver.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association between tumour FDG uptake on preoperative PET/CT and axillary lymph node metastasis (ALNM) according to breast cancer subtype. METHODS: The records of 671 patients with invasive breast cancer who underwent (18) F-FDG PET/CT and surgery were reviewed. Using immunohistochemistry, tumours were divided into three subtypes: oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, HER2-positive, and triple-negative. Tumour FDG uptake, expressed as maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), and clinicopathological variables were analysed. RESULTS: ALNM was present in 187 of 461 ER-positive/HER2-negative, 54 of 97 HER2-positive, and 38 of 113 triple-negative tumours. On multivariate analysis, high tumour SUVmax (≥4.25) (P < 0.001), large tumour size (>2 cm) (P = 0.003) and presence of lymphovascular invasion (P < 0.001) were independent variables associated with ALNM. On subset analyses, tumour SUVmax maintained independent significance for predicting ALNM in ER-positive/HER2-negative (adjusted odds ratio: 3.277, P < 0.001) and HER2-positive tumours (adjusted odds ratio: 14.637, P = 0.004). No association was found for triple-negative tumours (P = 0.161). CONCLUSIONS: Tumour SUVmax may be an independent prognostic factor for ALNM in patients with invasive breast cancer, especially in ER-positive/HER2-negative and HER2-positive subtypes, but not in those with triple-negative subtype. KEY POINTS: • Tumour SUVmax could be an imaging biomarker for predicting ALNM • Tumour SUVmax predicting ALNM is effective in ER-positive/HER2-negative and HER2-positive subtypes • Tumour SUVmax predicting ALNM is inaccurate in triple-negative subtypes • Accurate prognostic prediction based on molecular subtype may facilitate individualized management.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association between tumourFDG uptake on preoperative PET/CT and axillary lymph node metastasis (ALNM) according to breast cancer subtype. METHODS: The records of 671 patients with invasive breast cancer who underwent (18) F-FDG PET/CT and surgery were reviewed. Using immunohistochemistry, tumours were divided into three subtypes: oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, HER2-positive, and triple-negative. TumourFDG uptake, expressed as maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), and clinicopathological variables were analysed. RESULTS: ALNM was present in 187 of 461 ER-positive/HER2-negative, 54 of 97 HER2-positive, and 38 of 113 triple-negative tumours. On multivariate analysis, high tumour SUVmax (≥4.25) (P < 0.001), large tumour size (>2 cm) (P = 0.003) and presence of lymphovascular invasion (P < 0.001) were independent variables associated with ALNM. On subset analyses, tumour SUVmax maintained independent significance for predicting ALNM in ER-positive/HER2-negative (adjusted odds ratio: 3.277, P < 0.001) and HER2-positive tumours (adjusted odds ratio: 14.637, P = 0.004). No association was found for triple-negative tumours (P = 0.161). CONCLUSIONS:Tumour SUVmax may be an independent prognostic factor for ALNM in patients with invasive breast cancer, especially in ER-positive/HER2-negative and HER2-positive subtypes, but not in those with triple-negative subtype. KEY POINTS: • Tumour SUVmax could be an imaging biomarker for predicting ALNM • Tumour SUVmax predicting ALNM is effective in ER-positive/HER2-negative and HER2-positive subtypes • Tumour SUVmax predicting ALNM is inaccurate in triple-negative subtypes • Accurate prognostic prediction based on molecular subtype may facilitate individualized management.
Authors: Arnim A Bader; Joke Tio; Edgar Petru; Michael Bühner; Annette Pfahlberg; Hildegard Volkholz; Augustinus H Tulusan Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 4.872
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: Emi Yoshihara; Ann Smeets; Annouchka Laenen; Anneleen Reynders; Julie Soens; Chantal Van Ongeval; Philippe Moerman; Robert Paridaens; Hans Wildiers; Patrick Neven; Marie-Rose Christiaens Journal: Breast Date: 2012-09-28 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: U Veronesi; C De Cicco; V E Galimberti; J R Fernandez; N Rotmensz; G Viale; G Spano; A Luini; M Intra; P Veronesi; A Berrettini; G Paganelli Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2006-12-12 Impact factor: 32.976
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: Raymond B Weiss; Susan H Woolf; Erin Demakos; James F Holland; Donald A Berry; Geoffrey Falkson; Constance T Cirrincione; Alice Robbins; Sandra Bothun; I Craig Henderson; Larry Norton Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lee Gravatt Wilke; Linda M McCall; Katherine E Posther; Pat W Whitworth; Douglas S Reintgen; A Marilyn Leitch; Sheryl G A Gabram; Anthony Lucci; Charles E Cox; Kelly K Hunt; James E Herndon; Armando E Giuliano Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2006-03-02 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Ana María García Vicente; Ángel Soriano Castrejón; Jesús Fernando López-Fidalgo; Mariano Amo-Salas; María Del Mar Muñoz Sanchez; Ruth Álvarez Cabellos; Ruth Espinosa Aunión Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jose Luis Vercher-Conejero; Laura Pelegrí-Martinez; Diego Lopez-Aznar; María Del Puig Cózar-Santiago Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2015-03-16