Comparison between 18F-FDG PET image-derived indices for early prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 54, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 341-349

  Hatt, Mathieu ^a   Groheux, David ^b,c   Martineau, Antoine ^b   Espié, Marc ^b   Hindié, Elif ^d   Giacchetti, Sylvie ^b   De Roquancourt, Anne ^b   Visvikis, Dimitris ^a   Cheze Le Rest, Catherine ^a,e  

^a CHU MORVAN   (France)

^b SAINT LOUIS HOSPITAL   (France)

^c UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DIDEROT   (France)

^d UNIVERSITÉ DE BORDEAUX   (France)

^e POITIERS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

Author keywords

18F FDG; Breast cancer; Neoadjuvant chemotherapy; Pathological response; Tumor delineation

Indexed keywords

CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; DOCETAXEL; EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2; EPIRUBICIN; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; PROGESTERONE RECEPTOR; TRASTUZUMAB; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; ERBB2 PROTEIN, HUMAN; FLUORINE; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

ACCURACY; ADJUVANT THERAPY; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER STAGING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR POSITIVE BREAST CANCER; GLYCOLYSIS; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MASTECTOMY; MULTIPLE CYCLE TREATMENT; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREDICTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANK SUM TEST; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TRIPLE NEGATIVE BREAST CANCER; TUMOR VOLUME; BREAST TUMOR; COHORT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; METABOLISM; NEOPLASM; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCINTISCANNING;

ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; FLUORINE RADIOISOTOPES; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; NEOADJUVANT THERAPY; NEOPLASMS, HORMONE-DEPENDENT; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; RECEPTOR, ERBB-2; RECEPTORS, ESTROGEN; RECEPTORS, PROGESTERONE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84874860748     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.112.108837     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N, et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J ClinOncol. 1998;16:2672-2685. (Pubitemid 28363030)
2. 18F-FDG PET/CT: defining a clinical aim. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011; 38:419-425.
3. Bhargava R, Beriwal S, Dabbs DJ, et al. Immunohistochemical surrogate markers of breast cancer molecular classes predicts response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a single institutional experience with 359 cases. Cancer. 2010; 116:1431-1439.
4. von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU, et al. Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1796-1804.
5. 18F-FDG PET/CT during neoadjuvant chemotherapy identifies patients who are unlikely to achieve a pathologic complete response and are at a high risk of early relapse. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:249-254.
6. Rousseau C, Devillers A, Sagan C, 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. (Pubitemid 46623167)
7. Schwarz-Dose J, Untch M, Tiling R, et al. Monitoring primary systemic therapy of large and locally advanced breast cancer by using sequential positron emission tomography imaging with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:535-541.
8. 18F-FDG PET accurate to predict neoadjuvant therapy response in breast cancer? A meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;131:357-369.
9. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(suppl 1):122S-150S.
10. 18F-FDG PET quantitative parameters help in predicting the response to radioimmunotherapy in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:494-504.
11. 18F-FDG PET imagederived parameters for therapy response prediction in oesophageal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1595-1606.
12. Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, 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.
13. Tateishi U, Miyake M, Nagaoka T, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: prediction of pathologic response with PET/CT and dynamic contrastenhanced MR imaging - prospective assessment. Radiology. 2012;263:53-63.
14. Groheux D, Moretti J, Espié M, et al. FDG PET/CT for early prediction of the response of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer after two courses of EC (epirubicin 1 cyclophosphamide) [abstract]. J Nucl Med. 2010;51(suppl 2):51P.
15. Sataloff DM, Mason BA, Prestipino AJ, Seinige UL, Lieber CP, Baloch Z. Pathologic response to induction chemotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the breast: a determinant of outcome. J Am Coll Surg. 1995;180:297-306.
16. Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th ed. of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1471-1474.
17. Hatt M, Cheze le Rest C, Descourt P, et al. Accurate automatic delineation of heterogeneous functional volumes in positron emission tomography for oncology applications. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;77:301-308.
18. Hatt M, Cheze Le Rest C, Albarghach N, Pradier O, Visvikis D. PET functional volume delineation: a robustness and repeatability study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:663-672.
19. 18F-fluorothymidine PET tumor volume measurements. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1368-1376.
20. Boussion N, Cheze Le Rest C, Hatt M, Visvikis D. Incorporation of waveletbased denoising in iterative deconvolution for partial volume correction in whole-body PET imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:1064-1075.
21. Sheskin D. Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures. 5th ed. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2011.
22. Straver ME, Rutgers EJ, Rodenhuis S, et al. The relevance of breast cancer subtypes in the outcome of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010; 17:2411-2418.
23. 18F-FDG PET and CT non-small cell lung cancer tumor delineation. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1690-1697.
24. Hatt M, Visvikis D, Le Rest CC. Autocontouring versus manual contouring [letter]. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:658.
25. McDermott GM,Welch A, Staff RT, et al. Monitoring primary breast cancer throughout chemotherapy using FDG-PET. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;102:75-84. (Pubitemid 46294965)
26. 18F-FDG uptake to clinical, pathological and biological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:426-435.
27. Lips EH, Mulder L, de Ronde JJ, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ER1 HER22 breast cancer: response prediction based on immunohistochemical and molecular characteristics. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;131:827-836.
28. de Ronde JJ, Hannemann J, Halfwerk H, et al. Concordance of clinical and molecular breast cancer subtyping in the context of preoperative chemotherapy response. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;119:119-126.
29. Hoetjes NJ, van Velden FH, Hoekstra OS, et al. Partial volume correction strategies for quantitative FDG PET in oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:1679-1687.
30. 18F-FDG kinetics in locally advanced breast cancer: correlation with tumor blood flow and changes in response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1829-1837. (Pubitemid 47618439)
31. 18F-FDG PET. Acta Oncol. August 8, 2012 [Epub ahead of print].
32. 18F-FDG PET images in esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:12-20.
33. Geets X, Lee JA, Bol A, Lonneux M, Gregoire V. A gradient-based method for segmenting FDG-PET images: methodology and validation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1427-1438. (Pubitemid 47312577)
34. Belhassen S, Zaidi H. A novel fuzzy C-means algorithm for unsupervised heterogeneous tumor quantification in PET. Med Phys. 2010;37:1309-1324.