Stratifying triple-negative breast cancer prognosis using 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

Volumn 153, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 607-616

  Yue, Yong ^a   Cui, Xiaojiang ^a   Bose, Shikha ^a   Audeh, William ^a   Zhang, Xiao ^a   Fraass, Benedick ^a  

^a CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Basal like Breast Cancer; Biomarker; Imaging; PET CT

Indexed keywords

CYTOKERATIN 5; CYTOKERATIN 6; EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; KI 67 ANTIGEN; TUMOR MARKER;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER SURVIVAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SURVIVAL PREDICTION; TRIPLE NEGATIVE BREAST CANCER; CANCER STAGING; KAPLAN MEIER METHOD; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROCEDURES; PROGNOSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; TRIPLE NEGATIVE BREAST NEOPLASMS; TUMOR VOLUME; X-RAY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY;

ADULT; AGED; BIOMARKERS, TUMOR; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; KAPLAN-MEIER ESTIMATE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROGNOSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; TRIPLE NEGATIVE BREAST NEOPLASMS; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 84942990908     PISSN: 01676806     EISSN: 15737217     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-015-3558-1     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Perou CM, Sørlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees C et al (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406(6797):747–752. doi:10.1038/35021093
2. Parker JS, Mullins M, Cheang MCU, Leung S, Voduc D, Vickery T et al (2009) Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J Clin Oncol 27(8):1160–1167. doi:10.1200/JCO.2008.18.1370
3. Prat A, Adamo B, Cheang MCU, Anders CK, Carey LA, Perou CM (2013) Molecular characterization of basal-like and non-basal-like triple-negative breast cancers. Oncologist 18(2):122–133
4. Turner NC, Reis-Filho JS (2013) Tackling the diversity of triple-negative breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 19(23):6380–6388. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0915
5. Lehmann BD, Bauer JA, Chen X, Sanders ME, Chakravarthy AB, Shyr Y, Pietenpol JA (2011) Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and preclinical models for selection of targeted therapies. J Clin Investig. doi:10.1172/JCI45014DS1
6. Pistelli M, Caramanti M, Biscotti T, Santinelli A, Pagliacci A, De Lisa M et al (2014) Androgen receptor expression in early triple-negative breast cancer: clinical significance and prognostic associations. Cancers 6(3):1351–1362. doi:10.3390/cancers6031351
7. Gasparini P, Fassan M, Cascione L, Guler G, Balci S, Irkkan C et al (2014) Androgen receptor status is a prognostic marker in non-basal triple negative breast cancers and determines novel therapeutic options. PLoS ONE 9(2):e88525. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0088525
8. Chen X, Li J, Gray WH, Lehmann BD, Bauer JA, Shyr Y et al (2012) TNBC type: a subtyping tool for triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Inform 11:147–156
9. Weigelt B, Pusztai L, Ashworth A, Reis-Filho JS (2012) Challenges translating breast cancer gene signatures into the clinic. Nature Rev. Clin Oncol 9(1):58–64. doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2011.125
10. Mackay A, Weigelt B, Grigoriadis A, Kreike B, Natrajan R, A’Hern R et al (2011) Microarray-based class discovery for molecular classification of breast cancer: analysis of interobserver agreement. J Natl Cancer Inst 103(8):662–673. doi:10.1093/jnci/djr071
11. Lehmann BD, Pietenpol JA (2013) Identification and use of biomarkers in treatment strategies for triple negative breast cancer subtypes. J Pathol 232:142–150
12. Wahl RL, Cody RL, Hutchins GD, Mudgett EE (1991) Primary and metastatic breast carcinoma: initial clinical evalua-tion with PET and the radiolabeled glucose analogue 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose. Radiol 179:765–770
13. Avril N, Rose CA, Schelling M et al (2000) Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorode-oxyglucose: use and limitations. J Clin Oncol 18:3495–3502
14. Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Delord M, Hindié E, Vercellino L, Cuvier C et al (2013) 18F-FDG PET/CT in staging patients with locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer: comparison to conventional staging. J Nuc Med 54(1):5–11. doi:10.2967/jnumed.112.106864
15. Cochet A, Dygai-Cochet I, Riedinger J-M, Humbert O, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Toubeau M et al (2014) 18F-FDG PET/CT provides powerful prognostic stratification in the primary staging of large breast cancer when compared with conventional explorations. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41(3):428–437. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2595-4
16. Basu S, Chen W, Tchou J, Mavi A, Cermik T, Czerniecki B et al (2008) Comparison of triple-negative and estrogen receptor-positive/progesterone receptor-positive/HER2-negative breast carcinoma using quantitative fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose/positron emission tomography imaging parameters: a potentially useful method for d. Cancer 112(5):995–1000. doi:10.1002/cncr.23226
17. Groheux D, Hindié E, Giacchetti S, Delord M, Hamy A-S, de Roquancourt A et al (2012) Triple-negative breast cancer: early assessment with 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 Nuc Med 53(2):249–254. doi:10.2967/jnumed.111.094045
18. Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Delord M, de Roquancourt A, Merlet P, Hamy AS et al (2014) Prognostic impact of (18)F-FDG PET/CT staging and of pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. doi:10.1007/s00259-014-2941-1
19. Groheux D (2014) Predicting pathological complete response in breast cancer early. Lancet Oncol 15(13):1415–1416. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71020-4
20. Avril N, Dose J, Jdnicke F, Bense S et al (1996) Metabolic characterization of breast tumors with positron emission tomography using F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose. J Clin Oncol 14:1848–1857
21. Cheang MCU, Voduc D, Bajdik C, Leung S, McKinney S, Chia SK, Perou CM, Nielsen TO (2008) Basal-like breast cancer defined by five biomarkers has superior prognostic value than triple-negative phenotype. Clin Cancer Res 14(5):1368–1376. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1658
22. Hudis C, Barlow W, Costantino J et al (2007) Proposal for standardized definitions for efficacy end points in adjuvant breast cancer trials: the STEEP system. J Clin Oncol 25:2127–2132
23. Adams H, Tzankov A, Lugli A, Zlobec I (2009) New time-dependent approach to analyse the prognostic significance of immunohistochemical biomarkers in colon cancer and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Pathol 62:986–997
24. Keam B, Im S-A, Lee K-H, Han S-W, Oh D-Y, Kim JH et al (2011) Ki-67 can be used for further classification of triple negative breast cancer into two subtypes with different response and prognosis. Breast Cancer Res. doi:10.1186/bcr2834
25. Blanche P, Dartigues J-F, Jacqmin-Gadda H (2013) Estimating and comparing time-dependent areas under receiver operating characteristic curves for censored event times with competing risks. Stat Med 32(30):5381–5397. doi:10.1002/sim.5958
26. Kang MH, Go S-I, Song H-N, Lee A, Kim S-H, Kang J-H et al (2014) The prognostic impact of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in patients with small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 111(3):452–460. doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.317
27. Zlobec I, Steele R, Terracciano L, Jass JR, Lugli A (2007) Selecting immunohistochemical cut-off scores for novel biomarkers of progression and survival in colorectal cancer. J Clin Pathol 60(10):1112–1116. doi:10.1136/jcp.2006.044537
28. Takahashi H, Kurishima K, Ishikawa H (2010) Optimal Cutoff Points of CYFRA21-1 for Survival Prediction in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Based on Running Statistical. Analysis 3838:3833–3837
29. Carey LA, Rugo HS, Marcom PK, Mayer EL, Esteva FJ, Ma CX et al (2012) TBCRC 001: randomized phase II study of cetuximab in combination with carboplatin in stage IV triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 30(21):2615–2623. doi:10.1200/JCO.2010.34.5579
30. Baselga J, Stemmer S, Pego A, Chan A, Goeminne J-C, Graas M-P et al (2010) Cetuximab + cisplatin in estrogen receptor-negative, progesterone receptor-negative, HER2-negative (triple-negative) metastatic breast cancer: results of the randomized phase II BALI-1 trial. Cancer Res 70:95s
31. Viale G, Rotmensz N, Maisonneuve P, Bottiglieri L, Montagna E, Luini A et al (2009) Invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast with the “triple-negative” phenotype: prognostic implications of EGFR immunoreactivity. Breast Cancer Res Treat 116(2):317–328. doi:10.1007/s10549-008-0206-z
32. Zhang M, Zhang X, Zhao S, Wang Y, Di W, Zhao G et al (2013) Prognostic value of survivin and EGFR protein expression in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients. Target Oncol. doi:10.1007/s11523-013-0300-y
33. Thike AA, Iqbal J, Cheok PY, Chong APY, Tse GM-K, Tan B et al (2010) Triple negative breast cancer: outcome correlation with immunohistochemical detection of basal markers. Am J Surg Pathol 34(7):956–964. doi:10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181e02f45
34. Kutomi G (2012) Clinicopathological characteristics of basal type breast cancer in triple-negative breast cancer. J Cancer Ther 03(05):836–840. doi:10.4236/jct.2012.325106
35. Groheux D, Moretti JL, Baillet G et al (2008) Effect of (18)F-FDG PET/CT imaging in patients with clinical Stage II and III breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 71(3):695–704
36. Osborne JR, Port E, Gonen M et al (2010) 18F-FDG PET of locally invasive breast cancer and association of estrogen receptor status with standardized uptake value: microarray and immunohistochemical analysis. J Nucl Med 51(4):543–550
37. Aogi K, Kadoya T, Sugawara Y et al (2015) Utility of 18F FDG-PET/CT for predicting prognosis of luminal-type breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 150(1):209–217