Farrokh Dehdashti1,2,3, Ningying Wu4,5, Ron Bose4,6, Michael J Naughton4,6, Cynthia X Ma4,6, Bernadette V Marquez-Nostra7, Philipp Diebolder8, Cedric Mpoy8, Buck E Rogers4,8, Suzanne E Lapi9, Richard Laforest4,10, Barry A Siegel4,10. 1. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. dehdashtif@wustl.edu. 2. Edward Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. dehdashtif@wustl.edu. 3. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Campus Box 8223, 510 South Kingshighway Blvd., St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. dehdashtif@wustl.edu. 4. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 5. Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 6. Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 7. Department of Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. 8. Department of Radiaton Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 9. Departments of Radiology and Chemistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 10. Edward Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether tumor uptake of [89Zr]trastuzumab can distinguish HER2-positive from HER2-negative breast cancer. METHODS: Women with HER2-positive (n = 34) and HER2-negative (n = 16) breast cancer underwent PET/CT 5 ± 2 days following [89Zr]trastuzumab administration. HER2 status was determined based on immunohistochemistry and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization of primary or metastatic/recurrent tumor. Tumor [89Zr]trastuzumab uptake was assessed qualitatively and semiquantitatively as maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), and correlated with HER2 status. Additionally, intrapatient heterogeneity of [89Zr]trastuzumab uptake was evaluated. RESULTS: On a per-patient basis, [89Zr]trastuzumab-PET/CT was positive in 30/34 (88.2%) HER2-positive and negative in 15/16 (93.7%) HER2-negative patients. Considering all lesions, the SUVmax was not significantly different in patients with HER2-positive versus HER2-negative disease (p = 0.06). The same was true of when only hepatic lesions were evaluated (p = 0.42). However, after excluding hepatic lesions, tumor SUVmax was significantly higher in HER2-positive compared to HER2-negative patients (p = 0.003). A cutoff SUVmax of 3.2, determined by ROC analysis, demonstrated positive-predictive value of 83.3% (95% CI 65.3%, 94.4%), sensitivity of 75.8% (57.7%, 88.9%), negative-predictive value of 50% (24.7%, 75.3%), and specificity of 61.5% (95% 31.6%, 86.1%) for differentiating HER2-positive from HER2-negative lesions. There was intrapatient heterogeneity of [89Zr]trastuzumab uptake in 20% of patients with multiple lesions. CONCLUSIONS: [89Zr]trastuzumab has the potential to characterize the HER2 status of the complete tumor burden in patients with breast cancer, thus obviating repeat or multiple tissue sampling to assess intrapatient heterogeneity of HER2 status.
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether tumor uptake of [89Zr]trastuzumab can distinguish HER2-positive from HER2-negative breast cancer. METHODS:Women with HER2-positive (n = 34) and HER2-negative (n = 16) breast cancer underwent PET/CT 5 ± 2 days following [89Zr]trastuzumab administration. HER2 status was determined based on immunohistochemistry and/or fluorescence in situ hybridization of primary or metastatic/recurrent tumor. Tumor [89Zr]trastuzumab uptake was assessed qualitatively and semiquantitatively as maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), and correlated with HER2 status. Additionally, intrapatient heterogeneity of [89Zr]trastuzumab uptake was evaluated. RESULTS: On a per-patient basis, [89Zr]trastuzumab-PET/CT was positive in 30/34 (88.2%) HER2-positive and negative in 15/16 (93.7%) HER2-negative patients. Considering all lesions, the SUVmax was not significantly different in patients with HER2-positive versus HER2-negative disease (p = 0.06). The same was true of when only hepatic lesions were evaluated (p = 0.42). However, after excluding hepatic lesions, tumor SUVmax was significantly higher in HER2-positive compared to HER2-negative patients (p = 0.003). A cutoff SUVmax of 3.2, determined by ROC analysis, demonstrated positive-predictive value of 83.3% (95% CI 65.3%, 94.4%), sensitivity of 75.8% (57.7%, 88.9%), negative-predictive value of 50% (24.7%, 75.3%), and specificity of 61.5% (95% 31.6%, 86.1%) for differentiating HER2-positive from HER2-negative lesions. There was intrapatient heterogeneity of [89Zr]trastuzumab uptake in 20% of patients with multiple lesions. CONCLUSIONS: [89Zr]trastuzumab has the potential to characterize the HER2 status of the complete tumor burden in patients with breast cancer, thus obviating repeat or multiple tissue sampling to assess intrapatient heterogeneity of HER2 status.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; HER2; Positron emission tomography; Trastuzumab; Zirconium-89
Authors: Joanne E Mortimer; James R Bading; Jinha M Park; Paul H Frankel; Mary I Carroll; Tri T Tran; Erasmus K Poku; Russell C Rockne; Andrew A Raubitschek; John E Shively; David M Colcher Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Maria J W D Vosjan; Lars R Perk; Gerard W M Visser; Marianne Budde; Paul Jurek; Garry E Kiefer; Guus A M S van Dongen Journal: Nat Protoc Date: 2010-03-25 Impact factor: 13.491
Authors: Gary A Ulaner; David M Hyman; Dara S Ross; Adriana Corben; Sarat Chandarlapaty; Shari Goldfarb; Heather McArthur; Joseph P Erinjeri; Stephen B Solomon; Hartmuth Kolb; Serge K Lyashchenko; Jason S Lewis; Jorge A Carrasquillo Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-05-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Naoki Niikura; Jun Liu; Naoki Hayashi; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Yun Gong; Shana L Palla; Yutaka Tokuda; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Naoto T Ueno Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-11-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Linda Sofie Lindström; Eva Karlsson; Ulla M Wilking; Ulla Johansson; Johan Hartman; Elisabet Kerstin Lidbrink; Thomas Hatschek; Lambert Skoog; Jonas Bergh Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: N Niikura; A Tomotaki; H Miyata; T Iwamoto; M Kawai; K Anan; N Hayashi; K Aogi; T Ishida; H Masuoka; K Iijima; S Masuda; K Tsugawa; T Kinoshita; S Nakamura; Y Tokuda Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Supum Lee; Alessandra Cavaliere; Jean-Dominique Gallezot; Tibor Keler; Sharon K Michelhaugh; Erika Belitzky; Michael Liu; Tim Mulnix; Stephen E Maher; Alfred L M Bothwell; Fangyong Li; Manali Phadke; Sandeep Mittal; Bernadette Marquez-Nostra Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 6.009
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
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: David K Woolf; Sonia P Li; Simone Detre; Alison Liu; Andrew Gogbashian; Ian C Simcock; James Stirling; Michael Kosmin; Gary J Cook; Muhammad Siddique; Mitch Dowsett; Andreas Makris; Vicky Goh Journal: Biomark Cancer Date: 2019-06-04
Authors: Cuicui Li; Lei Kang; Kevin Fan; Carolina A Ferreira; Kaelyn V Becker; Nan Huo; Hanxiao Liu; Yunan Yang; Jonathan W Engle; Rongfu Wang; Xiaojie Xu; Dawei Jiang; Weibo Cai Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 6.069
Authors: Barbara Salvatore; Maria Grazia Caprio; Billy Samuel Hill; Annachiara Sarnella; Giovanni Nicola Roviello; Antonella Zannetti Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 6.639