Hansol Moon1, Woo Chul Noh2, Hyun-Ah Kim2, Eun-Kyu Kim2, Ko Woon Park3, Seung Sook Lee4, Joon Ho Choi1, Kyung Woo Han1, Byung Hyun Byun1, Ilhan Lim1, Byung Il Kim1, Chang Woon Choi1, Sang Moo Lim1. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences (KIRAMS), 75, Nowon-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 139-706 Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Surgery, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences (KIRAMS), Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Radiology, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences (KIRAMS), Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. National Radiation Emergency Medical Center, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences (KIRAMS), Seoul, Republic of Korea ; Department of Pathology, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigates the correlation of retention index (RI) using the dual phase FDG PET/CT scan with the breast cancer biomarkers. METHODS: A total of 55 patients with breast cancer underwent dual phase FDG PET/CT scans (60 and 120 min after FDG injection) before treatment. SUVmax and SUVmean of the primary breast tumors were measured, then the percent change of SUVmax and SUVmean between the two scans were calculated, and denoted as RImax and RImean, respectively. After the surgical resection of the breast tumor, the status of biomarkers (ER, PR, and HER-2) was evaluated in the postsurgical specimen. RESULTS: RImean was significantly higher in ER (-) (median, 16.2; IQR, 10.8-21.0) or HER-2 (+) (median, 16.1; IQR, 10.7-21.6) tumors than in ER (+) tumors (median, 9.9; IQR, 5.5-15.3) or HER-2 (-) tumors (median, 10.5; IQR, 5.5-16.1). However, there were no significant differences of SUVmax or RImax according to the ER or HER-2 status. There were no significant differences of any PET parameters between PR (+) and PR (-) tumors. Based off ROC curve analyses, RImean predicted the ER (+) tumors (AUC, 0.699; p = 0.006), and HER-2 (+) tumors (AUC, 0.674; p = 0.022), but not the PR (+) tumors. However, neither SUVmax nor RImax predicted ER (+), PR (+), or HER-2 (+) tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Retention index of SUVmean can reflect the ER and HER-2 status of breast cancers. Higher retention index of SUVmean might associate with lower ER expression and higher HER-2 expression.
PURPOSE: This study investigates the correlation of retention index (RI) using the dual phase FDG PET/CT scan with the breast cancer biomarkers. METHODS: A total of 55 patients with breast cancer underwent dual phase FDG PET/CT scans (60 and 120 min after FDG injection) before treatment. SUVmax and SUVmean of the primary breast tumors were measured, then the percent change of SUVmax and SUVmean between the two scans were calculated, and denoted as RImax and RImean, respectively. After the surgical resection of the breast tumor, the status of biomarkers (ER, PR, and HER-2) was evaluated in the postsurgical specimen. RESULTS:RImean was significantly higher in ER (-) (median, 16.2; IQR, 10.8-21.0) or HER-2 (+) (median, 16.1; IQR, 10.7-21.6) tumors than in ER (+) tumors (median, 9.9; IQR, 5.5-15.3) or HER-2 (-) tumors (median, 10.5; IQR, 5.5-16.1). However, there were no significant differences of SUVmax or RImax according to the ER or HER-2 status. There were no significant differences of any PET parameters between PR (+) and PR (-) tumors. Based off ROC curve analyses, RImean predicted the ER (+) tumors (AUC, 0.699; p = 0.006), and HER-2 (+) tumors (AUC, 0.674; p = 0.022), but not the PR (+) tumors. However, neither SUVmax nor RImax predicted ER (+), PR (+), or HER-2 (+) tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Retention index of SUVmean can reflect the ER and HER-2 status of breast cancers. Higher retention index of SUVmean might associate with lower ER expression and higher HER-2 expression.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Dual phase; Estrogen receptor; Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; Positron emission tomography; Retention index
Authors: Yu Mei Chen; Gang Huang; Xiao Guang Sun; Jian Jun Liu; Tao Chen; Yi Ping Shi; Liang Rong Wan Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Gerben R Borst; José S A Belderbos; Ronald Boellaard; Emile F I Comans; Katrien De Jaeger; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Joos V Lebesque Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: David N Danforth; Luigi Aloj; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Stephen L Bacharach; Cathy Chow; JoAnne Zujewski; Millie Whatley; Barbara Galen; Maria Merino; Ronald D Neumann Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Christopher C Riedl; Elina Slobod; Maxine Jochelson; Monica Morrow; Debra A Goldman; Mithat Gonen; Wolfgang A Weber; Gary A Ulaner Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-09-11 Impact factor: 10.057