Kazuhiro Kitajima1, Koya Nakatani2, Kazushige Yamaguchi3, Masatoyo Nakajo4, Atsushi Tani4, Mana Ishibashi5, Keiko Hosoya6, Takahiro Morita7, Takayuki Kinoshita8, Hayato Kaida9, Yasuo Miyoshi10. 1. Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine and PET Center, Hyogo College of Medicine, 1-1 Mukogawa-cho, Nishinomiya, Hyogo, 663-8501, Japan. kitajima@med.kobe-u.ac.jp. 2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Kurashiki Central Hospital, 1-1-1 Miwa, Kurashiki, Okayama, 710-8602, Japan. 3. Department of General Surgery, Kurashiki Central Hospital, 1-1-1 Miwa, Kurashiki, Okayama, 710-8602, Japan. 4. Department of Radiology, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Kagoshima University, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, 890-8544, Japan. 5. Department of Pathophysiological and Therapeutic Sciences, Division of Radiology, Tottori University, 36-1 Nishicho, Yonago, Tottori, 683-8504, Japan. 6. Division of Breast Cancer and Endocrine Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, 36-1 Nishicho, Yonago, Tottori, 683-8504, Japan. 7. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan. 8. Department of Breast Surgery, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan. 9. Department of Radiology, Kinki University Faculty of Medicine, 377-2 Ohnohigashi, Osakasayama, Osaka, 589-8511, Japan. 10. Department of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Hyogo College of Medicine, 1-1 Mukogawa-cho, Nishinomiya, Hyogo, 663-8501, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate therapeutic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and predict breast cancer recurrence using Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-nine breast cancer patients underwent fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) before and after NAC prior to planned surgical resection. Pathological complete response (pCR) of the primary tumor was evaluated using PERCIST, while effects of clinicopathological factors on progression-free survival (PFS) were examined using log-rank and Cox methods. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients and 54 primary tumors were evaluated. Complete metabolic response (CMR), partial metabolic response, stable metabolic disease, and progressive metabolic disease were seen in 45, 7, 3, and 1 patients, respectively, and 43, 7, 3, and 1 primary tumors, respectively. Eighteen (33.3%) of the 54 primary tumors showed pCR. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of PERCIST to predict pCR were 100% (18/18), 30.6% (11/36), 41.9% (18/43), 100% (11/11), and 53.7% (29/54), respectively. An optimal percent decrease in peak standardized uptake value for a primary tumor corrected for lean body mass (SULpeak) of 84.3% was found to have a sensitivity of 77.8% (14/18), specificity of 77.8% (28/36), PPV of 63.6% (14/22), NPV of 87.5% (28/32), and accuracy of 77.8% (42/54). Seven (12.5%) of the 56 patients developed recurrent disease (median follow-up 28.1 months, range 11.4-96.4 months). CMR (p = 0.031), pCR (p = 0.024), and early TNM stage (p = 0.033) were significantly associated with longer PFS. CONCLUSION: PERCIST is useful for predicting pathological response and prognosis following NAC in breast cancer patients. However, FDG-PET/CT showed a tendency toward underestimation of the residual tumor, and relatively low specificity and PPV of PERCIST showed that a combination of other imaging modalities would still be needed to predict pCR.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate therapeutic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and predict breast cancer recurrence using Positron Emission Tomography Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-nine breast cancerpatients underwent fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) before and after NAC prior to planned surgical resection. Pathological complete response (pCR) of the primary tumor was evaluated using PERCIST, while effects of clinicopathological factors on progression-free survival (PFS) were examined using log-rank and Cox methods. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients and 54 primary tumors were evaluated. Complete metabolic response (CMR), partial metabolic response, stable metabolic disease, and progressive metabolic disease were seen in 45, 7, 3, and 1 patients, respectively, and 43, 7, 3, and 1 primary tumors, respectively. Eighteen (33.3%) of the 54 primary tumors showed pCR. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of PERCIST to predict pCR were 100% (18/18), 30.6% (11/36), 41.9% (18/43), 100% (11/11), and 53.7% (29/54), respectively. An optimal percent decrease in peak standardized uptake value for a primary tumor corrected for lean body mass (SULpeak) of 84.3% was found to have a sensitivity of 77.8% (14/18), specificity of 77.8% (28/36), PPV of 63.6% (14/22), NPV of 87.5% (28/32), and accuracy of 77.8% (42/54). Seven (12.5%) of the 56 patients developed recurrent disease (median follow-up 28.1 months, range 11.4-96.4 months). CMR (p = 0.031), pCR (p = 0.024), and early TNM stage (p = 0.033) were significantly associated with longer PFS. CONCLUSION: PERCIST is useful for predicting pathological response and prognosis following NAC in breast cancerpatients. However, FDG-PET/CT showed a tendency toward underestimation of the residual tumor, and relatively low specificity and PPV of PERCIST showed that a combination of other imaging modalities would still be needed to predict pCR.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; FDG-PET/CT; PERCIST; Prognosis; Treatment response
Authors: Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Sean E McGuire; Thomas A Buchholz; Susan L Tucker; Henry M Kuerer; Roman Rouzier; Shu-Wan Kau; Eugene H Huang; Paolo Morandi; Alberto Ocana; Massimo Cristofanilli; Vicente Valero; Aman U Buzdar; Gabriel N Hortobagyi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Edwin R Fisher; Jiping Wang; John Bryant; Bernard Fisher; Eletherios Mamounas; Norman Wolmark Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-08-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: B Fisher; J Bryant; N Wolmark; E Mamounas; A Brown; E R Fisher; D L Wickerham; M Begovic; A DeCillis; A Robidoux; R G Margolese; A B Cruz; J L Hoehn; A W Lees; N V Dimitrov; H D Bear Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Bas B Koolen; Kenneth E Pengel; Jelle Wesseling; Wouter V Vogel; Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters; Andrew D Vincent; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Renato A Valdés Olmos Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-08-09 Impact factor: 9.236