Gary A Ulaner1,2, Komal Jhaveri3,4, Sarat Chandarlapaty3,4, Vaios Hatzoglou2,5, Christopher C Riedl2,5, Jason S Lewis2,5, Audrey Mauguen6. 1. Molecular Imaging and Therapy, Hoag Family Cancer Institute, Newport Beach, California gary.ulaner@hoag.org. 2. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 4. Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. 5. Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York; and. 6. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) demonstrates lower conspicuity on 18F-FDG PET than the more common invasive ductal carcinoma. Other molecular imaging methods may be needed for evaluation of this malignancy. As ILC is nearly always (95%) estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, ER-targeting PET tracers such as 16α-18F-fluoroestradiol (18F-FES) may have value. We reviewed prospective trials at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center using 18F-FES PET/CT to evaluate metastatic ILC patients with synchronous 18F-FDG and 18F-FES PET/CT imaging, which allowed a head-to-head comparison of these 2 PET tracers. Methods: Six prospective clinical trials using 18F-FES PET/CT in patients with metastatic breast cancer were performed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from 2008 to 2019. These trials included 92 patients, of whom 14 (15%) were of ILC histology. Seven of 14 patients with ILC had 18F-FDG PET/CT performed within 5 wk of the research 18F-FES PET/CT and no intervening change in management. For these 7 patients, the 18F-FES and 18F-FDG PET/CT studies were analyzed to determine the total number of tracer-avid lesions, organ systems of involvement, and SUVmax of each organ system for both tracers. Results: In the 7 comparable pairs of scans, there were a total of 254 18F-FES-avid lesions (SUVmax, 2.6-17.9) and 111 18F-FDG-avid lesions (SUVmax, 3.3-9.9) suggestive of malignancy. For 5 of 7 (71%) ILC patients, 18F-FES PET/CT detected more metastatic lesions than 18F-FDG PET/CT. In the same 5 of 7 patients, the SUVmax of 18F-FES-avid lesions was greater than the SUVmax of 18F-FDG-avid lesions. One patient had 18F-FES-avid metastases with no corresponding 18F-FDG-avid metastases. There were no patients with 18F-FDG-avid distant metastases without 18F-FES-avid distant metastases, although in one patient liver metastases were evident on 18F-FDG but not on 18F-FES PET. Conclusion: 18F-FES PET/CT compared favorably with 18F-FDG PET/CT for detection of metastases in patients with metastatic ILC. Larger prospective trials of 18F-FES PET/CT in ILC should be considered to evaluate ER-targeted imaging for clinical value in patients with this histology of breast cancer.
Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) demonstrates lower conspicuity on 18F-FDG PET than the more common invasive ductal carcinoma. Other molecular imaging methods may be needed for evaluation of this malignancy. As ILC is nearly always (95%) estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, ER-targeting PET tracers such as 16α-18F-fluoroestradiol (18F-FES) may have value. We reviewed prospective trials at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center using 18F-FES PET/CT to evaluate metastatic ILC patients with synchronous 18F-FDG and 18F-FES PET/CT imaging, which allowed a head-to-head comparison of these 2 PET tracers. Methods: Six prospective clinical trials using 18F-FES PET/CT in patients with metastatic breast cancer were performed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from 2008 to 2019. These trials included 92 patients, of whom 14 (15%) were of ILC histology. Seven of 14 patients with ILC had 18F-FDG PET/CT performed within 5 wk of the research 18F-FES PET/CT and no intervening change in management. For these 7 patients, the 18F-FES and 18F-FDG PET/CT studies were analyzed to determine the total number of tracer-avid lesions, organ systems of involvement, and SUVmax of each organ system for both tracers. Results: In the 7 comparable pairs of scans, there were a total of 254 18F-FES-avid lesions (SUVmax, 2.6-17.9) and 111 18F-FDG-avid lesions (SUVmax, 3.3-9.9) suggestive of malignancy. For 5 of 7 (71%) ILC patients, 18F-FES PET/CT detected more metastatic lesions than 18F-FDG PET/CT. In the same 5 of 7 patients, the SUVmax of 18F-FES-avid lesions was greater than the SUVmax of 18F-FDG-avid lesions. One patient had 18F-FES-avid metastases with no corresponding 18F-FDG-avid metastases. There were no patients with 18F-FDG-avid distant metastases without 18F-FES-avid distant metastases, although in one patient liver metastases were evident on 18F-FDG but not on 18F-FES PET. Conclusion: 18F-FES PET/CT compared favorably with 18F-FDG PET/CT for detection of metastases in patients with metastatic ILC. Larger prospective trials of 18F-FES PET/CT in ILC should be considered to evaluate ER-targeted imaging for clinical value in patients with this histology of breast cancer.
Authors: Michel van Kruchten; Elisabeth G de Vries; Andor W Glaudemans; Meta C van Lanschot; Martijn van Faassen; Ido P Kema; Myles Brown; Carolien P Schröder; Erik F de Vries; Geke A Hospers Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2014-11-07 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: N Avril; C A Rosé; M Schelling; J Dose; W Kuhn; S Bense; W Weber; S Ziegler; H Graeff; M Schwaiger Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-10-15 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: Lanell M Peterson; Janet O'Sullivan; Qian Vicky Wu; Alena Novakova-Jiresova; Isaac Jenkins; Jean H Lee; Andrew Shields; Susan Montgomery; Hannah M Linden; Julie Gralow; Vijayakrishna K Gadi; Mark Muzi; Paul Kinahan; David Mankoff; Jennifer M Specht Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Michel van Kruchten; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Erik F J de Vries; Carolien P Schröder; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Geke A P Hospers Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-06-20 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Richard L Wahl; Panithaya Chareonthaitawee; Bonnie Clarke; Alexander Drzezga; Liza Lindenberg; Arman Rahmim; James Thackeray; Gary A Ulaner; Wolfgang Weber; Katherine Zukotynski; John Sunderland Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Jana Ivanidze; Kritika Subramanian; Trisha Youn; Tessa Cigler; Joseph R Osborne; Rajiv S Magge; Onyinye D Balogun; Jonathan P S Knisely; Rohan Ramakrishna Journal: Neurooncol Adv Date: 2021-11-30