Briete Goorts1,2,3, Stefan Vöö4, Thiemo J A van Nijnatten5,6,4, Loes F S Kooreman5,7, Maaike de Boer8, Kristien B M I Keymeulen6, Romy Aarnoutse5,6, Joachim E Wildberger4, Felix M Mottaghy4,9, Marc B I Lobbes4, Marjolein L Smidt5,6. 1. GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands. b.goorts@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands. b.goorts@hotmail.com. 3. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands. b.goorts@hotmail.com. 4. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 5. GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 6. Department of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Pathology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 8. Department of Medical Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 9. Department of Nuclear Medicine, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our purpose in this study was to assess the added clinical value of hybrid 18F-FDG-PET/MRI compared to conventional imaging for locoregional staging in breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). METHODS: In this prospective study, primary invasive cT2-4 N0 or cT1-4 N+ breast cancer patients undergoing NAC were included. A PET/MRI breast protocol was performed before treatment. MR images were evaluated by a breast radiologist, blinded for PET images. PET images were evaluated by a nuclear physician. Afterwards, a combined PET/MRI report was written. PET/MRI staging was compared to conventional imaging, i.e., mammography, ultrasound and MRI. The proportion of patients with a modified treatment plan based on PET/MRI findings was analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients was included. PET/MRI was of added clinical value in 20.0% (8/40) of patients, changing the treatment plan in 10% and confirming the malignancy of suspicious lesions on MRI in another 10%. In seven (17.5%) patients radiotherapy fields were extended because of additional or affirmative PET/MRI findings being lymph node metastases (n = 5) and sternal bone metastases (n = 2). In one (2.5%) patient radiotherapy fields were reduced because of fewer lymph node metastases on PET/MRI compared to conventional imaging. Interestingly, all treatment changes were based on differences in number of lymph nodes suspicious for metastasis or number of distant metastasis, whereas differences in intramammary tumor extent were not observed. CONCLUSION: Prior to NAC, PET/MRI shows promising results for locoregional staging compared to conventional imaging, changing the treatment plan in 10% of patients and potentially replacing PET/CT or tissue sampling in another 10% of patients.
PURPOSE: Our purpose in this study was to assess the added clinical value of hybrid 18F-FDG-PET/MRI compared to conventional imaging for locoregional staging in breast cancerpatients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). METHODS: In this prospective study, primary invasive cT2-4 N0 or cT1-4 N+ breast cancerpatients undergoing NAC were included. A PET/MRI breast protocol was performed before treatment. MR images were evaluated by a breast radiologist, blinded for PET images. PET images were evaluated by a nuclear physician. Afterwards, a combined PET/MRI report was written. PET/MRI staging was compared to conventional imaging, i.e., mammography, ultrasound and MRI. The proportion of patients with a modified treatment plan based on PET/MRI findings was analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients was included. PET/MRI was of added clinical value in 20.0% (8/40) of patients, changing the treatment plan in 10% and confirming the malignancy of suspicious lesions on MRI in another 10%. In seven (17.5%) patients radiotherapy fields were extended because of additional or affirmative PET/MRI findings being lymph node metastases (n = 5) and sternal bone metastases (n = 2). In one (2.5%) patient radiotherapy fields were reduced because of fewer lymph node metastases on PET/MRI compared to conventional imaging. Interestingly, all treatment changes were based on differences in number of lymph nodes suspicious for metastasis or number of distant metastasis, whereas differences in intramammary tumor extent were not observed. CONCLUSION: Prior to NAC, PET/MRI shows promising results for locoregional staging compared to conventional imaging, changing the treatment plan in 10% of patients and potentially replacing PET/CT or tissue sampling in another 10% of patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Locoregional staging; Neoadjuvant chemotherapy; PET/MRI
Authors: Federica Pediconi; Elena Miglio; Marianna Telesca; Maria Laura Luciani; Miles A Kirchin; Roberto Passariello; Carlo Catalano Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Pascal A T Baltzer; Matthias Dietzel; Hartmut P Burmeister; Ramy Zoubi; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Oumar Camara; Werner A Kaiser Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: K L Cooper; S Harnan; Y Meng; S E Ward; P Fitzgerald; D Papaioannou; L Wyld; C Ingram; I D Wilkinson; E Lorenz Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2011-01-26 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Bas B Koolen; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Wouter V Vogel; Marie Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Paula H M Elkhuizen Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Bas B Koolen; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Paula H M Elkhuizen; Wouter V Vogel; Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Emiel J Th Rutgers Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2012-07-28 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: R J Schipper; L M van Roozendaal; B de Vries; R M Pijnappel; R G H Beets-Tan; M B I Lobbes; M L Smidt Journal: Breast Date: 2013-10-02 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Doenja M J Lambregts; Luc A Heijnen; Monique Maas; Iris J G Rutten; Milou H Martens; Walter H Backes; Robert G Riedl; Frans C H Bakers; Vincent C Cappendijk; Geerard L Beets; Regina G H Beets-Tan Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2013-08
Authors: Ines V Gruber; Miriam Rueckert; Karl O Kagan; Annette Staebler; Katja C Siegmann; Andreas Hartkopf; Diethelm Wallwiener; Markus Hahn Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2013-07-05 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Amy M Fowler; Manoj Kumar; Leah Henze Bancroft; Kelley Salem; Jacob M Johnson; Jillian Karow; Scott B Perlman; Tyler J Bradshaw; Samuel A Hurley; Alan B McMillan; Roberta M Strigel Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2021-01-15
Authors: Mariarosaria Incoronato; Anna Maria Grimaldi; Carlo Cavaliere; Marianna Inglese; Peppino Mirabelli; Serena Monti; Umberto Ferbo; Emanuele Nicolai; Andrea Soricelli; Onofrio Antonio Catalano; Marco Aiello; Marco Salvatore Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 9.236