Sun Young Chae1, Sei Hyun Ahn2, Sung-Bae Kim3, Sangwon Han1, Suk Hyun Lee1, Seung Jun Oh1, Sang Ju Lee1, Hee Jeong Kim2, Beom Seok Ko2, Jong Won Lee2, Byung Ho Son2, Jisun Kim2, Jin-Hee Ahn3, Kyung Hae Jung3, Jeong Eun Kim3, Seog-Young Kim4, Woo Jung Choi5, Hee Jung Shin4, Gyungyub Gong6, Hyo Sang Lee7, Jung Bok Lee8, Dae Hyuk Moon9. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 2. Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 3. Department of Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 4. Convergence Medicine Research Center, Department of Convergence Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 5. Department of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 6. Department of Pathology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 7. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Gangneung Asan Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Gangneung, South Korea. 8. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 9. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. Electronic address: dhmoon@amc.seoul.kr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A biopsy of first recurrence or metastatic disease is recommended to re-evaluate oestrogen receptor status in patients with breast cancer and to select appropriate treatment. However, retesting for oestrogen receptor status with rebiopsy is not always feasible, depending on lesion location and the risk associated with biopsy, and in these cases clinicians continue to treat patients according to the oestrogen receptor status of the primary tumour. Consequently suboptimal therapy might be offered to these patients. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy and safety of 16α-[18F]fluoro-17β-oestradiol (18F-FES) PET-CT to assess oestrogen receptor status in patients with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: We did a prospective cohort study at the Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea. Eligible patients had breast cancer, with first recurrence or metastatic disease at presentation, were 19 years or older, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. The primary objective was to show the agreement between qualitative 18F-FES PET-CT interpretation and the results of oestrogen receptor expression by immunohistochemical assay, a non-reference standard test. Whole-body 18F-FES PET-CT imaging was done after intravenous injection of 111-222 MBq of 18F-FES, with dosing primarily determined by radiation dosimetry analysis. 18F-FES uptake above background intensity was interpreted as positive. Efficacy was assessed in all patients with histologically confirmed recurrent or metastatic breast cancer who received 18F-FES and had PET-CT images available (intention-to-diagnose analysis), and safety was assessed in all patients who received 18F-FES. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01986569. FINDINGS: Between Nov 27, 2013, and Nov 10, 2016, 93 patients were enrolled. Of the 85 patients included in the efficacy analysis, 47 (55%) were oestrogen receptor-positive and 38 (45%) were oestrogen receptor-negative. Positive status percent agreement between the 18F-FES PET-CT results and oestrogen receptor status by immunohistochemical assay was 76·6% (95% CI 62·0-87·7) and the negative status percent agreement was 100·0% (90·8-100·0). Patients who were oestrogen receptor-positive and had a positive 18F-FES PET-CT result had a significantly higher progesterone receptor expression than those who were oestrogen receptor-positive and had a negative 18F-FES PET-CT result (23 [68%] of 34 patients vs 0 of 11 patients; p<0·0001). The most common adverse event was procedural pain in nine (10%) of 90 patients injected with 18F-FES. No adverse events were related to the study drug except injection site pain in one (1%) patient. No serious adverse events were recorded. INTERPRETATION: The high negative percent agreement between 18F-FES PET-CT and oestrogen receptor status by immunohistochemical assay in this cohort suggests that positive 18F-FES uptake by recurrent or metastatic oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer lesions could be an alternative to oestrogen receptor assays in this setting. Staging assessment should include 18F-FES PET-CT when retesting oestrogen receptor status is not feasible. FUNDING: Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Ministry of Health and Welfare, South Korea.
BACKGROUND: A biopsy of first recurrence or metastatic disease is recommended to re-evaluate oestrogen receptor status in patients with breast cancer and to select appropriate treatment. However, retesting for oestrogen receptor status with rebiopsy is not always feasible, depending on lesion location and the risk associated with biopsy, and in these cases clinicians continue to treat patients according to the oestrogen receptor status of the primary tumour. Consequently suboptimal therapy might be offered to these patients. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy and safety of 16α-[18F]fluoro-17β-oestradiol (18F-FES) PET-CT to assess oestrogen receptor status in patients with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: We did a prospective cohort study at the Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea. Eligible patients had breast cancer, with first recurrence or metastatic disease at presentation, were 19 years or older, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. The primary objective was to show the agreement between qualitative 18F-FES PET-CT interpretation and the results of oestrogen receptor expression by immunohistochemical assay, a non-reference standard test. Whole-body 18F-FES PET-CT imaging was done after intravenous injection of 111-222 MBq of 18F-FES, with dosing primarily determined by radiation dosimetry analysis. 18F-FES uptake above background intensity was interpreted as positive. Efficacy was assessed in all patients with histologically confirmed recurrent or metastatic breast cancer who received 18F-FES and had PET-CT images available (intention-to-diagnose analysis), and safety was assessed in all patients who received 18F-FES. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01986569. FINDINGS: Between Nov 27, 2013, and Nov 10, 2016, 93 patients were enrolled. Of the 85 patients included in the efficacy analysis, 47 (55%) were oestrogen receptor-positive and 38 (45%) were oestrogen receptor-negative. Positive status percent agreement between the 18F-FES PET-CT results and oestrogen receptor status by immunohistochemical assay was 76·6% (95% CI 62·0-87·7) and the negative status percent agreement was 100·0% (90·8-100·0). Patients who were oestrogen receptor-positive and had a positive 18F-FES PET-CT result had a significantly higher progesterone receptor expression than those who were oestrogen receptor-positive and had a negative 18F-FES PET-CT result (23 [68%] of 34 patients vs 0 of 11 patients; p<0·0001). The most common adverse event was procedural pain in nine (10%) of 90 patients injected with 18F-FES. No adverse events were related to the study drug except injection site pain in one (1%) patient. No serious adverse events were recorded. INTERPRETATION: The high negative percent agreement between 18F-FES PET-CT and oestrogen receptor status by immunohistochemical assay in this cohort suggests that positive 18F-FES uptake by recurrent or metastatic oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer lesions could be an alternative to oestrogen receptor assays in this setting. Staging assessment should include 18F-FES PET-CT when retesting oestrogen receptor status is not feasible. FUNDING: Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Ministry of Health and Welfare, South Korea.
Authors: Matthew F Covington; Bhasker R Koppula; Gabriel C Fine; Ahmed Ebada Salem; Richard H Wiggins; John M Hoffman; Kathryn A Morton Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-05-29 Impact factor: 6.575
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: Brenda F Kurland; Jay R Wiggins; Amandine Coche; Charlotte Fontan; Yann Bouvet; Peter Webner; Chaitanya Divgi; Hannah M Linden Journal: Oncologist Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 5.837
Authors: Agnes Jager; Elisabeth G E de Vries; C Willemien Menke-van der Houven van Oordt; Patrick Neven; Clasina M Venema; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Yamei Wang; Rebecca G Bagley; Maureen G Conlan; Philippe Aftimos Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 6.466