AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical value of F-fluoroestradiol (F-FES) PET/CT in the assessment of the estrogen receptor (ER) and its intratumoral heterogeneity in breast cancer patients. METHODS: Forty-six female patients (50 lesions) with histologically confirmed invasive breast cancer who underwent both F-FES and F-FDG PET/CT in our center were retrospectively included. All the patients enrolled were scheduled to undergo biopsy. The F-FES and FDG uptakes were compared with pathological features (tumor size, ER, progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, and Ki67%). The optimal threshold to discriminate ER-positive and ER-negative lesions was determined by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Furthermore, we observed the intratumoral heterogeneity by a heterogeneity index (SUVmax/SUVmean) and compared the results with the Chang-Gung Image Texture Analysis. RESULTS: There was good agreement between F-FES uptake and ER, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 expression (P < 0.001), and the use of SUVmean instead of SUVmax can provide a slightly better correlation. The optimal threshold for F-FES PET/CT to discriminate between ER-positive and ER-negative lesions, as determined by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, was an SUVmax of 1.82 (sensitivity = 88.2% and specificity = 87.5%) and SUVmean of 1.21 (sensitivity = 85.3% and specificity = 93.7). Our simplified heterogeneity index-FES can easily observe ER heterogeneity. In addition, our results suggested that recurrent/metastatic patients and lesions located other than breast might have greater heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: F-FES PET/CT is a feasible, noninvasive method for assessing ER expression in breast cancer patients. Because intratumoral heterogeneity exists, F-FES PET/CT might better reflect the ER expression, especially in metastatic patients after treatment, thus assisting in making individualized treatment decisions.
AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical value of F-fluoroestradiol (F-FES) PET/CT in the assessment of the estrogen receptor (ER) and its intratumoral heterogeneity in breast cancerpatients. METHODS: Forty-six female patients (50 lesions) with histologically confirmed invasive breast cancer who underwent both F-FES and F-FDG PET/CT in our center were retrospectively included. All the patients enrolled were scheduled to undergo biopsy. The F-FES and FDG uptakes were compared with pathological features (tumor size, ER, progesterone receptor, humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2, and Ki67%). The optimal threshold to discriminate ER-positive and ER-negative lesions was determined by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Furthermore, we observed the intratumoral heterogeneity by a heterogeneity index (SUVmax/SUVmean) and compared the results with the Chang-Gung Image Texture Analysis. RESULTS: There was good agreement between F-FES uptake and ER, progesterone receptor, and humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 expression (P < 0.001), and the use of SUVmean instead of SUVmax can provide a slightly better correlation. The optimal threshold for F-FES PET/CT to discriminate between ER-positive and ER-negative lesions, as determined by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, was an SUVmax of 1.82 (sensitivity = 88.2% and specificity = 87.5%) and SUVmean of 1.21 (sensitivity = 85.3% and specificity = 93.7). Our simplified heterogeneity index-FES can easily observe ER heterogeneity. In addition, our results suggested that recurrent/metastatic patients and lesions located other than breast might have greater heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS:F-FES PET/CT is a feasible, noninvasive method for assessing ER expression in breast cancerpatients. Because intratumoral heterogeneity exists, F-FES PET/CT might better reflect the ER expression, especially in metastatic patients after treatment, thus assisting in making individualized treatment decisions.
Authors: Matthew F Covington; Bhasker R Koppula; Gabriel C Fine; Ahmed Ebada Salem; Richard H Wiggins; John M Hoffman; Kathryn A Morton Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-05-29 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Dimakatso Alice Senthebane; Arielle Rowe; Nicholas Ekow Thomford; Hendrina Shipanga; Daniella Munro; Mohammad A M Al Mazeedi; Hashim A M Almazyadi; Karlien Kallmeyer; Collet Dandara; Michael S Pepper; M Iqbal Parker; Kevin Dzobo Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2017-07-21 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Jorianne Boers; Erik F J de Vries; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Geke A P Hospers; Carolina P Schröder Journal: Curr Oncol Rep Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 5.075
Authors: Brenda F Kurland; Jay R Wiggins; Amandine Coche; Charlotte Fontan; Yann Bouvet; Peter Webner; Chaitanya Divgi; Hannah M Linden Journal: Oncologist Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 5.837