Katja Pinker1, Christopher C Riedl2, Leonard Ong2, Maxine Jochelson3, Gary A Ulaner2, Heather McArthur4, Maura Dickler5, Mithad Gönen6, Wolfgang A Weber7. 1. Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 2. Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. Breast Imaging Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 4. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 5. Breast Medicine Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York; and. 6. Epidemiology and Biostatistics/Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 7. Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York weberw@mskcc.org.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) are not specific regarding the number of lesions that should be analyzed per patient. This study evaluated how the number of analyzed lesions affects response assessment in metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: In 60 patients, response was assessed by the change in SUVpeak, normalized to lean body mass, of the most (18)F-FDG-avid lesion (PERCIST 1) and by the change in the sum of normalized SUVpeak for up to 5 lesions (PERCIST 5). The correlation between response by PERCIST and progression-free and disease-specific survival was evaluated. RESULTS: In responders and nonresponders, the respective progression-free survival at 2 y was 37.26% and 6.43% for PERCIST 1 (P < 0.0001) and 33.65% and 7.14% for PERCIST 5 (P < 0.0001) and the respective disease-specific survival at 4 y was 58.96% and 25.44% for PERCIST 1 (P < 0.012) and 59.12% vs 20.01% for PERCIST 5 (P < 0.002). CONCLUSION: The number of analyzed lesions does not appear to have a major impact on the prognostic value of response assessment with (18)F-FDG PET/CT in metastatic breast cancer.
UNLABELLED: The PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) are not specific regarding the number of lesions that should be analyzed per patient. This study evaluated how the number of analyzed lesions affects response assessment in metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: In 60 patients, response was assessed by the change in SUVpeak, normalized to lean body mass, of the most (18)F-FDG-avid lesion (PERCIST 1) and by the change in the sum of normalized SUVpeak for up to 5 lesions (PERCIST 5). The correlation between response by PERCIST and progression-free and disease-specific survival was evaluated. RESULTS: In responders and nonresponders, the respective progression-free survival at 2 y was 37.26% and 6.43% for PERCIST 1 (P < 0.0001) and 33.65% and 7.14% for PERCIST 5 (P < 0.0001) and the respective disease-specific survival at 4 y was 58.96% and 25.44% for PERCIST 1 (P < 0.012) and 59.12% vs 20.01% for PERCIST 5 (P < 0.002). CONCLUSION: The number of analyzed lesions does not appear to have a major impact on the prognostic value of response assessment with (18)F-FDG PET/CT in metastatic breast cancer.
Authors: Joerg Dose Schwarz; Michael Bader; Lars Jenicke; Gabriele Hemminger; Fritz Jänicke; Norbert Avril Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: D Groheux; S Giacchetti; M Delord; A de Roquancourt; P Merlet; A S Hamy; M Espié; E Hindié Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-11-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Patrick G Morris; Gary A Ulaner; Anne Eaton; Maurizio Fazio; Komal Jhaveri; Sujata Patil; Laura Evangelista; Joseph Y Park; Cristian Serna-Tamayo; Jane Howard; Steven Larson; Clifford A Hudis; Heather L McArthur; Maxine S Jochelson Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: I C Smith; A E Welch; A W Hutcheon; I D Miller; S Payne; F Chilcott; S Waikar; T Whitaker; A K Ah-See; O Eremin; S D Heys; F J Gilbert; P F Sharp Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M Schelling; N Avril; J Nährig; W Kuhn; W Römer; D Sattler; M Werner; J Dose; F Jänicke; H Graeff; M Schwaiger Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David A Mankoff; Lisa K Dunnwald; Julie R Gralow; Georgiana K Ellis; Erin K Schubert; Jeffrey Tseng; Thomas J Lawton; Hannah M Linden; Robert B Livingston Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Heinrich Magometschnigg; Katja Pinker; Thomas Helbich; Anita Brandstetter; Margaretha Rudas; Thomas Nakuz; Pascal Baltzer; Wolfgang Wadsak; Marcus Hacker; Michael Weber; Peter Dubsky; Martin Filipits Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: G M Kramer; Y Liu; A J de Langen; E P Jansma; I Trigonis; M-C Asselin; A Jackson; L Kenny; E O Aboagye; O S Hoekstra; R Boellaard Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-01-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Charline Lasnon; Elske Quak; Pierre-Yves Le Roux; Philippe Robin; Michael S Hofman; David Bourhis; Jason Callahan; David S Binns; Cédric Desmonts; Pierre-Yves Salaun; Rodney J Hicks; Nicolas Aide Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2017-05-30