Nariya Cho1,2,3, Seock-Ah Im4,5, Gi Jeong Cheon6,7, In-Ae Park8, Kyung-Hun Lee9,6, Tae-Yong Kim9,6, Young Seon Kim1,10, Bo Ra Kwon1, Jung Min Lee7, Hoon Young Suh7, Koung Jin Suh9. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. moisa@snu.ac.kr. 5. Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. moisa@snu.ac.kr. 6. Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 7. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 8. Department of Pathology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 9. Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. 10. Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Yeungnam University, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore whether integrated 18F-FDG PET/MRI can be used to predict pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with breast cancer. METHODS: Between November 2014 and April 2016, 26 patients with breast cancer who had received NAC and subsequent surgery were prospectively enrolled. Each patient underwent 18F-FDG PET/MRI examination before and after the first cycle of NAC. Qualitative MRI parameters, including morphological descriptors and the presence of peritumoral oedema were assessed. Quantitatively, PET parameters, including maximum standardized uptake value, metabolic tumour volume and total lesion glycolysis (TLG), and MRI parameters, including washout proportion and signal enhancement ratio (SER), were measured. The performance of the imaging parameters singly and in combination in predicting a pathological incomplete response (non-pCR) was assessed. RESULTS: Of the 26 patients, 7 (26.9%) exhibited a pathological complete response (pCR), and 19 (73.1%) exhibited a non-pCR. No significant differences were found between the pCR and non-pCR groups in the qualitative MRI parameters. The mean percentage reductions in TLG30% on PET and SER on MRI were significantly greater in the pCR group than in the non-pCR group (TLG30% -64.8 ± 15.5% vs. -25.4 ± 48.7%, P = 0.005; SER -34.6 ± 19.7% vs. -8.7 ± 29.0%, P = 0.040). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the percentage change in TLG30% (0.789, 95% CI 0.614 to 0.965) was similar to that for the percentage change in SER (0.789, 95% CI 0.552 to 1.000; P = 1.000).The specificity of TLG30% in predicting pCR) was 100% (7/7) and that of SER was 71.4% (5/7). The sensitivity of TLG30% in predicting non-pCR was 63.2% (12/19) and that of SER was 84.2% (16/19). When the combined TLG30% and SER criterion was applied, sensitivity was 100% (19/19), and specificity was 71.4% (5/7). CONCLUSION: 18F-FDG PET/MRI can be used to predict non-pCR after the first cycle of NAC in patients with breast cancer and has the potential to improve sensitivity by the addition of MRI parameters to the PET parameters.
PURPOSE: To explore whether integrated 18F-FDG PET/MRI can be used to predict pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with breast cancer. METHODS: Between November 2014 and April 2016, 26 patients with breast cancer who had received NAC and subsequent surgery were prospectively enrolled. Each patient underwent 18F-FDG PET/MRI examination before and after the first cycle of NAC. Qualitative MRI parameters, including morphological descriptors and the presence of peritumoral oedema were assessed. Quantitatively, PET parameters, including maximum standardized uptake value, metabolic tumour volume and total lesion glycolysis (TLG), and MRI parameters, including washout proportion and signal enhancement ratio (SER), were measured. The performance of the imaging parameters singly and in combination in predicting a pathological incomplete response (non-pCR) was assessed. RESULTS: Of the 26 patients, 7 (26.9%) exhibited a pathological complete response (pCR), and 19 (73.1%) exhibited a non-pCR. No significant differences were found between the pCR and non-pCR groups in the qualitative MRI parameters. The mean percentage reductions in TLG30% on PET and SER on MRI were significantly greater in the pCR group than in the non-pCR group (TLG30% -64.8 ± 15.5% vs. -25.4 ± 48.7%, P = 0.005; SER -34.6 ± 19.7% vs. -8.7 ± 29.0%, P = 0.040). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the percentage change in TLG30% (0.789, 95% CI 0.614 to 0.965) was similar to that for the percentage change in SER (0.789, 95% CI 0.552 to 1.000; P = 1.000).The specificity of TLG30% in predicting pCR) was 100% (7/7) and that of SER was 71.4% (5/7). The sensitivity of TLG30% in predicting non-pCR was 63.2% (12/19) and that of SER was 84.2% (16/19). When the combined TLG30% and SER criterion was applied, sensitivity was 100% (19/19), and specificity was 71.4% (5/7). CONCLUSION: 18F-FDG PET/MRI can be used to predict non-pCR after the first cycle of NAC in patients with breast cancer and has the potential to improve sensitivity by the addition of MRI parameters to the PET parameters.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Neoadjuvant chemotherapy; PET; PET/MRI; Response prediction
Authors: W Fraser Symmans; Caimiao Wei; Rebekah Gould; Xian Yu; Ya Zhang; Mei Liu; Andrew Walls; Alex Bousamra; Maheshwari Ramineni; Bruno Sinn; Kelly Hunt; Thomas A Buchholz; Vicente Valero; Aman U Buzdar; Wei Yang; Abenaa M Brewster; Stacy Moulder; Lajos Pusztai; Christos Hatzis; Gabriel N Hortobagyi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-01-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David A Mankoff; Lisa K Dunnwald; Julie R Gralow; Georgiana K Ellis; Aaron Charlop; Thomas J Lawton; Erin K Schubert; Jeffrey Tseng; Robert B Livingston Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Kenneth E Pengel; Bas B Koolen; Claudette E Loo; Wouter V Vogel; Jelle Wesseling; Esther H Lips; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Marie Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: W Fraser Symmans; Florentia Peintinger; Christos Hatzis; Radhika Rajan; Henry Kuerer; Vicente Valero; Lina Assad; Anna Poniecka; Bryan Hennessy; Marjorie Green; Aman U Buzdar; S Eva Singletary; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Lajos Pusztai Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-09-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Stefanie Avril; Raymond F Muzic; Donna Plecha; Bryan J Traughber; Shaveta Vinayak; Norbert Avril Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 10.057
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
Authors: Stefania Montemezzi; Giulio Benetti; Maria Vittoria Bisighin; Lucia Camera; Chiara Zerbato; Francesca Caumo; Elena Fiorio; Sara Zanelli; Michele Zuffante; Carlo Cavedon Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-04-20 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Simon Peter Gampenrieder; Andreas Peer; Christian Weismann; Matthias Meissnitzer; Gabriel Rinnerthaler; Johanna Webhofer; Theresa Westphal; Marina Riedmann; Thomas Meissnitzer; Heike Egger; Frederike Klaassen Federspiel; Roland Reitsamer; Cornelia Hauser-Kronberger; Katharina Stering; Klaus Hergan; Brigitte Mlineritsch; Richard Greil Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 6.466