The value of pre- and post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy F-18 FDG PET/CT scans in breast cancer: comparison with MRI

Abstract

Background

Accurate assessment of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) response with positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may provide appropriate operation guidelines for individual breast cancer patients.

Purpose

To compare the values of PET/CT and MRI for response evaluation following NAC in breast cancer patients.

Material and Methods

Thirty-three consecutive patients who underwent NAC were included. PET/CT and MRI were performed before and one to four weeks after NAC. With response evaluation of PET/CT and MRI, patients with complete/partial responses on imaging studies were considered to be responders, and those showing stable/progressive disease non-responders. Peak standardized uptake value corrected for lean body mass (SULpeak) and metabolic tumor volume (MTV) were measured from PET/CT, and unidimensional diameter (1D) and tumor volume (TV) from MRI. Reduction rates for each parameter were calculated (Δ%SULpeak, Δ%MTV, Δ%1D, and Δ%TV). The pathological response for NAC as reference was evaluated after surgical resection of the remaining tumor in the breast.

Results

We identified 17 pathological responders and 16 non-responders. PET/CT had lower specificity and accuracy, but higher sensitivity than MRI, although no significant difference was found between PET/CT and MRI. Following NAC, there were significant differences between pathological responders and non-responders in SULpeak (P < 0.001), MTV (P < 0.001), 1D (P = 0.0003), TV (P = 0.038), Δ%SULpeak (P = 0.001), Δ%MTV (P < 0.001), Δ%1D (P < 0.001), and Δ%TV (P = 0.001).

Conclusion

PET/CT showed lower specificity and accuracy than MRI in evaluating responses to NAC, but both PET/CT and MRI parameters may have predictive value in distinguishing therapeutic responders and non-responders following NAC.

Keywords

Breast neoplasms neoadjuvant therapy positron-emission tomography magnetic resonance imaging

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kaufmann

von Minckwitz

Smith

et al.

International expert panel on the use of primary (preoperative) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: review and recommendations. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 2600–2608.

Thomas

Holmes

Smith

et al.

The use of alternate, non-cross-resistant adjuvant chemotherapy on the basis of pathologic response to a neoadjuvant doxorubicin-based regimen in women with operable breast cancer: long-term results from a prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 2294–2302.

Buzdar

Singletary

Theriault

et al.

Prospective evaluation of paclitaxel versus combination chemotherapy with fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 3412–3417.

Kim

Park

et al.

Evaluation with 3.0-T MR imaging: predicting the pathological response of triple-negative breast cancer treated with anthracycline and taxane neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Acta Radiol 2015; 56: 1069–1077.

Padhani

Hayes

Assersohn

et al.

Prediction of clinicopathologic response of breast cancer to primary chemotherapy at contrast-enhanced MR imaging: initial clinical results. Radiology 2006; 239: 361–374.

Ah-See

Makris

Taylor

et al.

Early changes in functional dynamic magnetic resonance imaging predict for pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in primary breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2008; 14: 6580–6589.

Miller

Hoogstraten

Staquet

et al.

Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 1981; 47: 207–214.

Therasse

Arbuck

Eisenhauer

et al.

New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 205–216.

Eisenhauer

Therasse

Bogaerts

et al.

New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 228–247.

10.

Lorenzon

Zuiani

Londero

et al.

Assessment of breast cancer response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: is volumetric MRI a reliable tool?

Eur J Radiol 2009; 71: 82–88.

11.

Martincich

Montemurro

De Rosa

et al.

Monitoring response to primary chemotherapy in breast cancer using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2004; 83: 67–76.

12.

Partridge

Gibbs

et al.

MRI measurements of breast tumor volume predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and recurrence-free survival. Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184: 1774–1781.

13.

Tiezzi

de Andrade

Marana

et al.

Clinical criteria as predictive factors of response to primary hormone therapy in locally advanced breast cancer. Breast J 2009; 15: 333–338.

14.

Pierga

Petit

Levy

et al.

Pathological response and circulating tumor cell count identifies treated HER2+ inflammatory breast cancer patients with excellent prognosis: BEVERLY-2 survival data. Clin Cancer Res 2015; 21: 1298–1304.

15.

Young

Baum

Cremerius

et al.

Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer 1999; 35: 1773–1782.

16.

Wahl

Jacene

Kasamon

et al.

From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 2009; 50(Suppl. 1): 122S–150S.

17.

Hatt

Groheux

Martineau

et al.

Comparison between 18F-FDG PET image-derived indices for early prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Nucl Med 2013; 54: 341–349.

18.

Rousseau

Devillers

Sagan

et al.

Monitoring of early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and III breast cancer by [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 5366–5372.

19.

Berriolo-Riedinger

Touzery

Riedinger

et al.

[18F]FDG-PET predicts complete pathological response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007; 34: 1915–1924.

20.

Kumar

Seenu

et al.

The role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in evaluation of early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 1347–1357.

21.

Tateishi

Miyake

Nagaoka

et al.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: prediction of pathologic response with PET/CT and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging–prospective assessment. Radiology 2012; 263: 53–63.

22.

Baba

Isoda

Maruoka

et al.

Diagnostic and prognostic value of pretreatment SUV in 18F-FDG/PET in breast cancer: comparison with apparent diffusion coefficient from diffusion-weighted MR imaging. J Nucl Med 2014; 55: 736–742.

23.

Choi

Yoo

Choi

et al.

The value of pre-and post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy F-18 FDG PET/CT scans in breast cancer: Comparison with MRI. J Nucl Med 2010; 51: 182–182.

24.

Partridge

Heumann

Hylton

. Semi-automated analysis for MRI of breast tumors. Stud Health Technol Inform 1999; 62: 259–260.

25.

Okamoto

Yamada

Kanemaki

et al.

Magnetic resonance examination to predict pathological complete response following neoadjuvant chemotherapy: when is it appropriate for HER2-positive and triple-negative breast cancers?

Breast Cancer 2016; 23: 789–796.

26.

Sataloff

Mason

Prestipino

et al.

Pathologic response to induction chemotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the breast: a determinant of outcome. J Am Coll Surg 1995; 180: 297–306.

27.

Lim

Noh

Park

et al.

The combination of FDG PET and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI improves the prediction of disease-free survival in patients with advanced breast cancer after the first cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2014; 41: 1852–1860.

28.

Larson

Erdi

Akhurst

et al.

Tumor treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumor glycolysis using PET-FDG imaging: the visual response score and the change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging 1999; 2: 159–171.

29.

Roedl

Colen

Holalkere

et al.

Adenocarcinomas of the esophagus: response to chemoradiotherapy is associated with decrease of metabolic tumor volume as measured on PET-CT. Comparison to histopathologic and clinical response evaluation. Radiother Oncol 2008; 89: 278–286.

30.

Swisher

Maish

Erasmus

et al.

Utility of PET, CT, and EUS to identify pathologic responders in esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 2004; 78: 1152–1160. discussion 1152–1160.

31.

Lin

Yang

Mutic

et al.

FDG-PET imaging for the assessment of physiologic volume response during radiotherapy in cervix cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 65: 177–181.

32.

Wahl

Zasadny

Helvie

et al.

Metabolic monitoring of breast cancer chemohormonotherapy using positron emission tomography: initial evaluation. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 2101–2111.

33.

Smith

Welch

Hutcheon

et al.

Positron emission tomography using [(18)F]-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose to predict the pathologic response of breast cancer to primary chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 1676–1688.

34.

Kim

Kang

et al.

MRI volume measurements compared with the RECIST 1.1 for evaluating the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for mass-type lesions. Breast Cancer 2014; 21: 316–324.

35.

Kajary

Tokes

Dank

et al.

Correlation of the value of 18F-FDG uptake, described by SUVmax, SUVavg, metabolic tumour volume and total lesion glycolysis, to clinicopathological prognostic factors and biological subtypes in breast cancer. Nucl Med Commun 2015; 36: 28–37.

36.

Lee

Choi

Lee

et al.

Prognostic value of volume-based (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT parameters in patients with clinically node-negative oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma. Korean J Radiol 2012; 13: 752–759.

37.

Kaida

Toh

Hayakawa

et al.

The relationship between 18F-FDG metabolic volumetric parameters and clinicopathological factors of breast cancer. Nucl Med Commun 2013; 34: 562–570.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB