Christopher C Riedl1,2, Katja Pinker3,4, Gary A Ulaner3,5, Leonard T Ong3, Pascal Baltzer4, Maxine S Jochelson3,5, Heather L McArthur6, Mithat Gönen7, Maura Dickler8, Wolfgang A Weber3,5. 1. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. riedlc@mskcc.org. 2. Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, 10065, USA. riedlc@mskcc.org. 3. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. 4. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, 1090, Vienna, Austria. 5. Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, 10065, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, Breast Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA. 7. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA. 8. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) for the prediction of progression-free survival (PFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) in patients with stage IV breast cancer undergoing systemic therapy. METHODS: Sixty-five patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with first- or second-line systemic therapy in prospective clinical trials were included. Response to treatment was evaluated by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 for CE-CT and by PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST), respectively. RESULTS: All responders by RECIST (n = 22) were also responders by PERCIST, but 40% (17/43) of non-responders by RECIST were responders by PERCIST. Responses according to RECIST and PERCIST both correlated with PFS, but PERCIST showed a significantly higher predictive accuracy (concordance index for PFS: 0.70 vs. 0.60). One-year PFS for responders vs. non-responders by RECIST was 59% vs. 27%, compared to 63% vs. 0% by PERCIST. Four-year DSS of responders and non-responders by RECIST was 50% and 38%, respectively (p = 0.2, concordance index: 0.55) as compared to 58% vs. 18% for PERCIST (p < 0.001, concordance index: 0.65). Response on PET/CT was also a significantly better predictor for DSS than disease control on CE-CT. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with metastatic breast cancer, tumor response on PET/CT appears to be a superior predictor of PFS and DSS than response on CE-CT. Monitoring tumor response by PET/CT may increase the power of clinical trials using tumor response as an endpoint, and may improve patient management in clinical routine.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) for the prediction of progression-free survival (PFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) in patients with stage IV breast cancer undergoing systemic therapy. METHODS: Sixty-five patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with first- or second-line systemic therapy in prospective clinical trials were included. Response to treatment was evaluated by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 for CE-CT and by PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST), respectively. RESULTS: All responders by RECIST (n = 22) were also responders by PERCIST, but 40% (17/43) of non-responders by RECIST were responders by PERCIST. Responses according to RECIST and PERCIST both correlated with PFS, but PERCIST showed a significantly higher predictive accuracy (concordance index for PFS: 0.70 vs. 0.60). One-year PFS for responders vs. non-responders by RECIST was 59% vs. 27%, compared to 63% vs. 0% by PERCIST. Four-year DSS of responders and non-responders by RECIST was 50% and 38%, respectively (p = 0.2, concordance index: 0.55) as compared to 58% vs. 18% for PERCIST (p < 0.001, concordance index: 0.65). Response on PET/CT was also a significantly better predictor for DSS than disease control on CE-CT. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with metastatic breast cancer, tumor response on PET/CT appears to be a superior predictor of PFS and DSS than response on CE-CT. Monitoring tumor response by PET/CT may increase the power of clinical trials using tumor response as an endpoint, and may improve patient management in clinical routine.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; FDG; PET/CT; Survival; Treatment response
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Jennifer M Specht; Stephen L Tam; Brenda F Kurland; Julie R Gralow; Robert B Livingston; Hannah M Linden; Georgiana K Ellis; Erin K Schubert; Lisa K Dunnwald; David A Mankoff Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Heather A Jacene; Sophie Leboulleux; Shingo Baba; Daniel Chatzifotiadis; Behnaz Goudarzi; Oleg Teytelbaum; Karen M Horton; Ihab Kamel; Katarzyna J Macura; Hua-Ling Tsai; Jeanne Kowalski; Richard L Wahl Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-10-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Stephanie E Stafford; Julie R Gralow; Erin K Schubert; Kristine J Rinn; Lisa K Dunnwald; Robert B Livingston; David A Mankoff Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Kimiteru Ito; Rebecca Teng; Heiko Schöder; John L Humm; Ai Ni; Laure Michaud; Reiko Nakajima; Rikiya Yamashita; Jedd D Wolchok; Wolfgang A Weber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Anna G Sorace; Asser A Elkassem; Samuel J Galgano; Suzanne E Lapi; Benjamin M Larimer; Savannah C Partridge; C Chad Quarles; Kirsten Reeves; Tiara S Napier; Patrick N Song; Thomas E Yankeelov; Stefanie Woodard; Andrew D Smith Journal: Semin Nucl Med Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 4.446