Nicolas Aide1,2, Nicolas Elie3, Cécile Blanc-Fournier4, Christelle Levy5, Thibault Salomon6, Charline Lasnon2,7. 1. Nuclear Medicine Department, University Hospital, Caen, France. 2. INSERM 1086 ANTICIPE, Normandy University, Caen, France. 3. Université de Caen Normandie, UNICAEN, SF 4206 ICORE, CMABIO3, Caen, France. 4. Pathology Department, François Baclesse Cancer Centre, Caen, France. 5. Breast Cancer Unit, François Baclesse Cancer Centre, Caen, France. 6. Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital Centre, Versailles, France. 7. Nuclear Medicine Department, François Baclesse Cancer Centre, Caen, France.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to investigate whether 18F-FDG PET metabolic heterogeneity reflects the heterogeneity of estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) expressions within luminal non-metastatic breast tumors and if it could help in identifying patients with worst event-free survival (EFS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: On 38 PET high-resolution breast bed positions, a single physician drew volumes of interest encompassing the breast tumors to extract SUVmax, histogram parameters and textural features. High-resolution immunochemistry (IHC) scans were analyzed to extract Haralick parameters and descriptors of the distribution shape. Correlation between IHC and PET parameters were explored using Spearman tests. Variables of interest to predict the EFS status at 8 years (EFS-8y) were sought by means of a random forest classification. EFS-8y analyses were then performed using univariable Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox regression analysis. When appropriate, Mann-Whitney tests and Spearman correlations were used to explore the relationship between clinical data and tumoral PET heterogeneity variables. RESULTS: For ER expression, correlations were mainly observed with 18F-FDG histogram parameters, whereas for PR expression correlations were mainly observed with gray-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) parameters. The strongest correlations were observed between skewness_ER and uniformity_HISTO (ρ = -0.386, p = 0.017) and correlation_PR and entropy_GLCM (ρ = 0.540, p = 0.001), respectively. The median follow-up was 6.5 years and the 8y-EFS was 71.0%. Random forest classification found age, clinical stage, SUVmax, skewness_ER, kurtosis_ER, entropy_HISTO, and uniformity_HISTO to be variables of importance to predict the 8y-EFS. Univariable Kaplan-Meier survival analyses showed that skewness_ER was a predictor of 8y-EFS (66.7 ± 27.2 versus 19.1 ± 15.2, p = 0.018 with a cut-off value set to 0.163) whereas other IHC and PET parameters were not. On multivariable analysis including age, clinical stage and skewness_ER, none of the parameters were independent predictors. Indeed, skewness_ER was significantly higher in youngest patients (ρ = -0.351, p = 0.031) and in clinical stage III tumors (p = 0.023). CONCLUSION: A heterogeneous distribution of ER within the tumor in IHC appeared as an EFS-8y prognosticator in luminal non-metastatic breast cancers. Interestingly, it appeared to be correlated with PET histogram parameters which could therefore become potential non-invasive prognosticator tools, provided these results are confirmed by further larger and prospective studies.
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to investigate whether 18F-FDG PET metabolic heterogeneity reflects the heterogeneity of estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) expressions within luminal non-metastatic breast tumors and if it could help in identifying patients with worst event-free survival (EFS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: On 38 PET high-resolution breast bed positions, a single physician drew volumes of interest encompassing the breast tumors to extract SUVmax, histogram parameters and textural features. High-resolution immunochemistry (IHC) scans were analyzed to extract Haralick parameters and descriptors of the distribution shape. Correlation between IHC and PET parameters were explored using Spearman tests. Variables of interest to predict the EFS status at 8 years (EFS-8y) were sought by means of a random forest classification. EFS-8y analyses were then performed using univariable Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox regression analysis. When appropriate, Mann-Whitney tests and Spearman correlations were used to explore the relationship between clinical data and tumoral PET heterogeneity variables. RESULTS: For ER expression, correlations were mainly observed with 18F-FDG histogram parameters, whereas for PR expression correlations were mainly observed with gray-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) parameters. The strongest correlations were observed between skewness_ER and uniformity_HISTO (ρ = -0.386, p = 0.017) and correlation_PR and entropy_GLCM (ρ = 0.540, p = 0.001), respectively. The median follow-up was 6.5 years and the 8y-EFS was 71.0%. Random forest classification found age, clinical stage, SUVmax, skewness_ER, kurtosis_ER, entropy_HISTO, and uniformity_HISTO to be variables of importance to predict the 8y-EFS. Univariable Kaplan-Meier survival analyses showed that skewness_ER was a predictor of 8y-EFS (66.7 ± 27.2 versus 19.1 ± 15.2, p = 0.018 with a cut-off value set to 0.163) whereas other IHC and PET parameters were not. On multivariable analysis including age, clinical stage and skewness_ER, none of the parameters were independent predictors. Indeed, skewness_ER was significantly higher in youngest patients (ρ = -0.351, p = 0.031) and in clinical stage III tumors (p = 0.023). CONCLUSION: A heterogeneous distribution of ER within the tumor in IHC appeared as an EFS-8y prognosticator in luminal non-metastatic breast cancers. Interestingly, it appeared to be correlated with PET histogram parameters which could therefore become potential non-invasive prognosticator tools, provided these results are confirmed by further larger and prospective studies.
Authors: Charles Lemarignier; Antoine Martineau; Luis Teixeira; Laetitia Vercellino; Marc Espié; Pascal Merlet; David Groheux Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Antonio C Wolff; M Elizabeth Hale Hammond; Kimberly H Allison; Brittany E Harvey; Pamela B Mangu; John M S Bartlett; Michael Bilous; Ian O Ellis; Patrick Fitzgibbons; Wedad Hanna; Robert B Jenkins; Michael F Press; Patricia A Spears; Gail H Vance; Giuseppe Viale; Lisa M McShane; Mitchell Dowsett Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David Groheux; Antoine Martineau; Luis Teixeira; Marc Espié; Patricia de Cremoux; Philippe Bertheau; Pascal Merlet; Charles Lemarignier Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Arvydas Laurinavicius; Benoit Plancoulaine; Aida Laurinaviciene; Paulette Herlin; Raimundas Meskauskas; Indra Baltrusaityte; Justinas Besusparis; Darius Dasevicius; Nicolas Elie; Yasir Iqbal; Catherine Bor Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2014 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Defeng Liu; Linsha Yang; Dan Du; Tao Zheng; Lanxiang Liu; Zhanqiu Wang; Juan Du; Yanchao Dong; Huiling Yi; Yujie Cui Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 6.244