Heather Jacene1,2, Mofei Liu3, Su-Chun Cheng3, Amanda Abbott4, Shipra Dubey2, Keisha McCall4, Diane Young5, Mayzie Johnston5, Annick D Van den Abbeele4, Beth Overmoyer6. 1. Department of Imaging, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; hjacene@bwh.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Division of Biostatistics, Department of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Imaging, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. GTx, Inc., Memphis, Tennessee; and. 6. Susan F. Smith Center for Women's Cancers, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
Most breast cancers express androgen receptors (ARs). This prospective imaging substudy explored imaging of ARs with 18F-fluoro-5α-dihydrotestosterone (18F-FDHT) PET in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) receiving selective AR modulation (SARM) therapy (GTx-024). Methods: Eleven postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive MBC underwent 18F-FDHT PET/CT at baseline and at 6 and 12 wk after starting SARM therapy. Abnormal tumor 18F-FDHT uptake was quantified using SUVmax AR status was determined from tumor biopsy specimens. 18F-FDHT SUVmax percentage change between scans was calculated. Best overall response was categorized as clinical benefit (nonprogressive disease) or progressive disease using RECIST 1.1. Results: The median baseline 18F-FDHT SUVmax was 4.1 (range, 1.4-5.9) for AR-positive tumors versus 2.3 (range, 1.5-3.2) for AR-negative tumors (P = 0.22). Quantitative AR expression and baseline 18F-FDHT uptake were weakly correlated (Pearson ρ = 0.39, P = 0.30). Seven participants with clinical benefit at 12 wk tended to have larger declines in 18F-FDHT uptake than did those with progressive disease both at 6 wk after starting GTx-024 (median, -26.8% [range, -42.9% to -14.1%], vs. -3.7% [range,-31% to +29%], respectively; P = 0.11) and at 12 wk after starting GTx-024 (median, -35.7% [range, -69.5% to -7.7%], vs. -20.1% [range, -26.6% to +56.5%], respectively; P = 0.17). Conclusion: These hypothesis-generating data suggest that 18F-FDHT PET/CT is worth further study as an imaging biomarker for evaluating the response of MBC to SARM therapy and reiterate the feasibility of including molecular imaging in multidisciplinary therapeutic trials.
Most breast cancers express androgen receptors (ARs). This prospective imaging substudy explored imaging of ARs with 18F-fluoro-5α-dihydrotestosterone (18F-FDHT) PET in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) receiving selective AR modulation (SARM) therapy (GTx-024). Methods: Eleven postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive MBC underwent 18F-FDHT PET/CT at baseline and at 6 and 12 wk after starting SARM therapy. Abnormal tumor 18F-FDHT uptake was quantified using SUVmax AR status was determined from tumor biopsy specimens. 18F-FDHT SUVmax percentage change between scans was calculated. Best overall response was categorized as clinical benefit (nonprogressive disease) or progressive disease using RECIST 1.1. Results: The median baseline 18F-FDHT SUVmax was 4.1 (range, 1.4-5.9) for AR-positive tumors versus 2.3 (range, 1.5-3.2) for AR-negative tumors (P = 0.22). Quantitative AR expression and baseline 18F-FDHT uptake were weakly correlated (Pearson ρ = 0.39, P = 0.30). Seven participants with clinical benefit at 12 wk tended to have larger declines in 18F-FDHT uptake than did those with progressive disease both at 6 wk after starting GTx-024 (median, -26.8% [range, -42.9% to -14.1%], vs. -3.7% [range,-31% to +29%], respectively; P = 0.11) and at 12 wk after starting GTx-024 (median, -35.7% [range, -69.5% to -7.7%], vs. -20.1% [range, -26.6% to +56.5%], respectively; P = 0.17). Conclusion: These hypothesis-generating data suggest that 18F-FDHT PET/CT is worth further study as an imaging biomarker for evaluating the response of MBC to SARM therapy and reiterate the feasibility of including molecular imaging in multidisciplinary therapeutic trials.
Authors: Clasina M Venema; Lemonitsa H Mammatas; Carolina P Schröder; Michel van Kruchten; Giulia Apollonio; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Alfons H H Bongaerts; Otto S Hoekstra; Henk M W Verheul; Epi Boven; Bert van der Vegt; Erik F J de Vries; Elisabeth G E de Vries; Ronald Boellaard; Catharina W Menke van der Houven van Oordt; Geke A P Hospers Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jorianne Boers; Clasina M Venema; Erik F J de Vries; Geke A P Hospers; Hendrikus H Boersma; Bart Rikhof; Christine Dorbritz; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Carolina P Schröder Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2020-12-17 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Uwe Ackermann; Jason S Lewis; Kenneth Young; Michael J Morris; Andrew Weickhardt; Ian D Davis; Andrew M Scott Journal: J Labelled Comp Radiopharm Date: 2016-07-04 Impact factor: 1.921
Authors: Christina Davies; Hongchao Pan; Jon Godwin; Richard Gray; Rodrigo Arriagada; Vinod Raina; Mirta Abraham; Victor Hugo Medeiros Alencar; Atef Badran; Xavier Bonfill; Joan Bradbury; Michael Clarke; Rory Collins; Susan R Davis; Antonella Delmestri; John F Forbes; Peiman Haddad; Ming-Feng Hou; Moshe Inbar; Hussein Khaled; Joanna Kielanowska; Wing-Hong Kwan; Beela S Mathew; Indraneel Mittra; Bettina Müller; Antonio Nicolucci; Octavio Peralta; Fany Pernas; Lubos Petruzelka; Tadeusz Pienkowski; Ramachandran Radhika; Balakrishnan Rajan; Maryna T Rubach; Sera Tort; Gerard Urrútia; Miriam Valentini; Yaochen Wang; Richard Peto Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-03-09 Impact factor: 79.321