Advertisement

Prediction of biological characteristics of breast cancer using dual-phase FDG PET/CT

  • Shinsuke SasadaEmail author
  • Norio Masumoto
  • Eri Suzuki
  • Satoshi Sueoka
  • Noriko Goda
  • Keiko Kajitani
  • Akiko Emi
  • Takayuki Kadoya
  • Morihito Okada
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to assess whether the retention index (RI) determined using dual-phase 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) reflects the malignant features of breast cancer.

Methods

A total of 1,523 patients with breast cancer were retrospectively evaluated. PET/CT scans were performed at 1 h and 2 h after FDG administration before treatment. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) at both time points (SUVmax1 and SUVmax2) in the primary tumour and RI were calculated. Primary tumour tissues were evaluated in terms of biological features, such as histology, nuclear grade, lymphovascular invasion and molecular subtype.

Results

Of the 1,523 patients, 463 (30.4%) had luminal A-like, 661 (43.4%) had luminal B-like, 229 (15.0%) had human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2-positive), and 157 (10.3%) triple-negative breast cancer. The median SUVmax1, SUVmax2 and RI values were 2.2, 2.3 and 2.6%, respectively. These metabolic parameters were correlated with tumour size, nodal metastasis, histology, nuclear grade, lymphovascular invasion, and molecular subtype (all P < 0.001). The median RI values were 0% in luminal A-like, 5.3% in luminal B-like, 6.9% in HER2-positive, and 11.4% in triple-negative breast cancer. RI was associated with malignant features when the tumour accumulated a significant amount of FDG. In a subanalysis of patients with tumours of stages T2 to T4, RI was correlated with nodal metastasis, histology, nuclear grade, and molecular subtype (luminal A-like 4.8%, luminal B-like 12.3%, HER2-positive 15.8%, and triple-negative 16.3%).

Conclusion

RI determined using delayed-phase FDG PET/CT is associated with malignant features in breast cancers with significant FDG uptake. Dual-phase imaging was helpful in distinguishing luminal A-like breast cancer from luminal B-like, HER2-positive, and triple-negative breast cancers.

Keywords

Breast cancer PET FDG Dual-phase Retention index 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Kazushi Marukawa and Masatsugu Tsujimura of Chuden Hospital for providing data regarding PET examinations. The authors also thank Ai Shimamoto for data management.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the principles of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, PW E, Gnant M, Dubsky P, Loibl S, et al. De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1700–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ. Progress and promise: highlights of the international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2007. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:1133–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hong S, Li J, Wang S. 18FDG PET-CT for diagnosis of distant metastases in breast cancer patients. A meta-analysis. Surg Oncol. 2013;22:139–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Groheux D, Espie M, Giacchetti S, Hindie E. Performance of FDG PET/CT in the clinical management of breast cancer. Radiology. 2013;266:388–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boerner AR, Weckesser M, Herzog H, Schmitz T, Audretsch W, Nitz U, et al. Optimal scan time for fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med. 1999;26:226–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lodge MA, Lucas JD, Marsden PK, Cronin BF, O’Doherty MJ, Smith MA. A PET study of 18FDG uptake in soft tissue masses. Eur J Nucl Med. 1999;26:22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hamberg LM, Hunter GJ, Alpert NM, Choi NC, Babich JW, Fischman AJ. The dose uptake ratio as an index of glucose metabolism: useful parameter or oversimplification? J Nucl Med. 1994;35:1308–12.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kumar R, Loving VA, Chauhan A, Zhuang H, Mitchell S, Alavi A. Potential of dual-time-point imaging to improve breast cancer diagnosis with (18)F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1819–24.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moon H, Noh WC, Kim HA, Kim EK, Park KW, Lee SS, et al. The relationship between estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 expression of breast cancer and the retention index in dual phase (18)F-FDG PET/CT. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;50:246–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    García Vicente AM, Castrejón ÁS, Relea Calatayud F, Muñoz AP, León Martín AA, López-Muñiz IC, et al. 18F-FDG retention index and biologic prognostic parameters in breast cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2012;37:460–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    García Vicente AM, Soriano Castrejón A, Relea Calatayud F, Muñoz Madero V, Molina Garrido MJ, León Martín AA, et al. 18F-FDG semi-quantitative parameters and biological prognostic factors in locally advanced breast cancer. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol. 2012;31:308–14.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    García Vicente AM, Soriano Castrejón Á, León Martín A, Chacón López-Muñiz I, Muñoz Madero V, Muñoz Sánchez Mdel M, et al. Molecular subtypes of breast cancer: metabolic correlation with (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1304–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ozen A, Altinay S, Ekmekcioglu O, Albayrak R, Muhammedoglu A, Yigitbas H, et al. Dual-time (18)F-FDG PET/CT imaging in initial Locoregional staging of breast carcinoma: comparison with conventional imaging and pathological prognostic factors. Indian J Surg. 2016;78:382–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene F, Trotti A. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer; 2010.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine. FDG-PET, PET/CT clinical practice guideline. 2012 (in Japanese). http://jsnm.sakura.ne.jp/wp_jsnm/wp-content/themes/theme_jsnm/doc/fdgpet_guideline2012_120912.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2019.
  17. 17.
    Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48:452–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gatenby RA, Gillies RJ. Why do cancers have high aerobic glycolysis? Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4:891–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kadoya T, Aogi K, Kiyoto S, Masumoto N, Sugawara Y, Okada M. Role of maximum standardized uptake value in fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography predicts malignancy grade and prognosis of operable breast cancer: a multi-institute study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;141:269–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ekmekcioglu O, Aliyev A, Yilmaz S, Arslan E, Kaya R, Kocael P, et al. Correlation of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake with histopathological prognostic factors in breast carcinoma. Nucl Med Commun. 2013;34:1055–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Moretti JL, Porcher R, Espie M, Lehmann-Che J, et al. Correlation of high 18F-FDG uptake to clinical, pathological and biological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:426–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ueda S, Tamaki Y, Yano K, Okishiro N, Yanagisawa T, Imasato M, et al. Cosmetic outcome and patient satisfaction after skin-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer with immediate reconstruction of the breast. Surgery. 2008;143:414–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:932–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgical Oncology, Research Institute for Radiation Biology and MedicineHiroshima UniversityHiroshima CityJapan

Personalised recommendations