David Groheux1, Mohamed Majdoub2, Florent Tixier3, Catherine Cheze Le Rest3, Antoine Martineau1, Pascal Merlet1, Marc Espié4, Anne de Roquancourt5, Elif Hindié6, Mathieu Hatt7, Dimitris Visvikis2. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Saint-Louis Hospital, Paris, France. 2. INSERM, UMR 1101 LaTIM, CHRU Morvan, 2 avenue Foch, 29609, Brest, France. 3. DACTIM, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Milétrie Hospital, Poitiers, France. 4. Breast Diseases Unit and Department of Medical Oncology, Saint-Louis Hospital, Paris, France. 5. Department of Pathology, Saint-Louis Hospital, Paris, France. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, CHU Bordeaux, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France. 7. INSERM, UMR 1101 LaTIM, CHRU Morvan, 2 avenue Foch, 29609, Brest, France. hatt@univ-brest.fr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study was to determine if some features of baseline (18)F-FDG PET images, including volume and heterogeneity, reflect clinical, histological or immunohistochemical characteristics in patients with stage II or III breast cancer (BC). METHODS: Included in the present retrospective analysis were 171 prospectively recruited patients with stage II/III BC treated consecutively at Saint-Louis hospital. Primary tumour volumes were semiautomatically delineated on pretreatment (18)F-FDG PET images. The parameters extracted included SUVmax, SUVmean, metabolically active tumour volume (MATV), total lesion glycolysis (TLG) and heterogeneity quantified using the area under the curve of the cumulative histogram and textural features. Associations between clinical/histopathological characteristics and (18)F-FDG PET features were assessed using one-way analysis of variance. Areas under the ROC curves (AUC) were used to quantify the discriminative power of the features significantly associated with clinical/histopathological characteristics. RESULTS: T3 tumours (>5 cm) exhibited higher textural heterogeneity in (18)F-FDG uptake than T2 tumours (AUC <0.75), whereas there were no significant differences in SUVmax and SUVmean. Invasive ductal carcinoma showed higher SUVmax values than invasive lobular carcinoma (p = 0.008) but MATV, TLG and textural features were not discriminative. Grade 3 tumours had higher FDG uptake (AUC 0.779 for SUVmax and 0.694 for TLG), and exhibited slightly higher regional heterogeneity (AUC 0.624). Hormone receptor-negative tumours had higher SUV values than oestrogen receptor-positive (ER-positive) and progesterone receptor-positive tumours, while heterogeneity patterns showed only low-level variation according to hormone receptor expression. HER-2 status was not associated with any of the image features. Finally, SUVmax, SUVmean and TLG significantly differed among the three phenotype subgroups (HER2-positive, triple-negative and ER-positive/HER2-negative BCs), but MATV and heterogeneity metrics were not discriminative. CONCLUSION: SUV parameters, MATV and textural features showed limited correlations with clinical and histopathological features. The three main BC subgroups differed in terms of SUVs and TLG but not in terms of MATV and heterogeneity. None of the PET-derived metrics offered high discriminative power.
PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study was to determine if some features of baseline (18)F-FDG PET images, including volume and heterogeneity, reflect clinical, histological or immunohistochemical characteristics in patients with stage II or III breast cancer (BC). METHODS: Included in the present retrospective analysis were 171 prospectively recruited patients with stage II/III BC treated consecutively at Saint-Louis hospital. Primary tumour volumes were semiautomatically delineated on pretreatment (18)F-FDG PET images. The parameters extracted included SUVmax, SUVmean, metabolically active tumour volume (MATV), total lesion glycolysis (TLG) and heterogeneity quantified using the area under the curve of the cumulative histogram and textural features. Associations between clinical/histopathological characteristics and (18)F-FDG PET features were assessed using one-way analysis of variance. Areas under the ROC curves (AUC) were used to quantify the discriminative power of the features significantly associated with clinical/histopathological characteristics. RESULTS:T3 tumours (>5 cm) exhibited higher textural heterogeneity in (18)F-FDG uptake than T2 tumours (AUC <0.75), whereas there were no significant differences in SUVmax and SUVmean. Invasive ductal carcinoma showed higher SUVmax values than invasive lobular carcinoma (p = 0.008) but MATV, TLG and textural features were not discriminative. Grade 3 tumours had higher FDG uptake (AUC 0.779 for SUVmax and 0.694 for TLG), and exhibited slightly higher regional heterogeneity (AUC 0.624). Hormone receptor-negative tumours had higher SUV values than oestrogen receptor-positive (ER-positive) and progesterone receptor-positive tumours, while heterogeneity patterns showed only low-level variation according to hormone receptor expression. HER-2 status was not associated with any of the image features. Finally, SUVmax, SUVmean and TLG significantly differed among the three phenotype subgroups (HER2-positive, triple-negative and ER-positive/HER2-negative BCs), but MATV and heterogeneity metrics were not discriminative. CONCLUSION: SUV parameters, MATV and textural features showed limited correlations with clinical and histopathological features. The three main BC subgroups differed in terms of SUVs and TLG but not in terms of MATV and heterogeneity. None of the PET-derived metrics offered high discriminative power.
Authors: Laura J Esserman; Donald A Berry; Angela DeMichele; Lisa Carey; Sarah E Davis; Meredith Buxton; Cliff Hudis; Joe W Gray; Charles Perou; Christina Yau; Chad Livasy; Helen Krontiras; Leslie Montgomery; Debasish Tripathy; Constance Lehman; Minetta C Liu; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Hope S Rugo; John T Carpenter; Lynn Dressler; David Chhieng; Baljit Singh; Carolyn Mies; Joseph Rabban; Yunn-Yi Chen; Dilip Giri; Laura van 't Veer; Nola Hylton Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-05-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Philippe Lambin; Emmanuel Rios-Velazquez; Ralph Leijenaar; Sara Carvalho; Ruud G P M van Stiphout; Patrick Granton; Catharina M L Zegers; Robert Gillies; Ronald Boellard; André Dekker; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-01-16 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Mathieu Hatt; David Groheux; Antoine Martineau; Marc Espié; Elif Hindié; Sylvie Giacchetti; Anne de Roquancourt; Dimitris Visvikis; Catherine Cheze-Le Rest Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-01-17 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: Gary J R Cook; Connie Yip; Muhammad Siddique; Vicky Goh; Sugama Chicklore; Arunabha Roy; Paul Marsden; Shahreen Ahmad; David Landau Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-11-30 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Charles Lemarignier; Antoine Martineau; Luis Teixeira; Laetitia Vercellino; Marc Espié; Pascal Merlet; David Groheux Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 9.236