Tumor metabolism assessed by FDG-PET/CT and tumor proliferation assessed by genomic grade index to predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple negative breast cancer

  • David Groheux
  • L. Biard
  • J. Lehmann-Che
  • L. Teixeira
  • F. A. Bouhidel
  • B. Poirot
  • P. Bertheau
  • P. Merlet
  • M. Espié
  • M. Resche-Rigon
  • C. Sotiriou
  • P. de Cremoux
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Survival is increased when pathological complete response (pCR) is reached after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), especially in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and the genomic grade index (GGI), each separately, showed good potential to predict pCR. Our study was designed to evaluate the predictive value for the therapeutic response of a combination of parameters based on FDG-PET, histoclinical features and molecular markers of proliferation.

Methods

Molecular parameters were measured on pre-treatment biopsy. Tumor metabolic activity was measured using two PET/CT scans, one before and one after 2 cycles of NAC. The pCR was determined on specimen after NAC. Event-free survival (EFS) was estimated using the Kaplan Meier method.

Results

Of 55 TNBC patients, 19 (35%) reached pCR after NAC. Tumor grade and Ki67 were not associated with pCR whereas GGI (P = 0.04) and its component KPNA2 (P = 0.04) showed a predictive value. The change of FDG uptake between PET1 and PET2 (ΔSUVmax) was highly associated with pCR (P = 0.0001) but the absolute value of baseline SUVmax was not (P = 0.11). However, the AUC of pCR prediction increased from 0.63 to 0.76 when baseline SUVmax was combined with the GGI (P = 0.016). The only two parameters associated with EFS were ΔSUVmax (P = 0.048) and pathological response (P = 0.014).

Conclusions

The early tumor metabolic change during NAC is a powerful parameter to predict pCR and outcome in TNBC patients. The GGI, determined on pretreatment biopsy, is also predictive of pCR and the combination GGI and baseline SUVmax improves the prediction.

Keywords

FDG-PET/CT Genomic grade index Triple negative breast cancer Neoadjuvant chemotherapy Pathological complete response Event free survival 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Mrs. E Wittmer for her excellent technical expertise for the realization of all molecular analysis. We thank all the staff of the departments of Nuclear Medicine, of Medical Oncology, of Surgical Oncology and of radiation therapy of Biochemistry and of Pathology, and especially, Dr. Bourstyn, Dr. Cahen-Doidy, Dr. Cuvier, Dr. Giacchetti, Dr. Hennequin, Dr. Lemarignier, Dr. de Rocquancourt, Dr. Vercellino, who participated to the management of the patients. We thank L Someil, K Aboudou and L Culine from the CIRCO for their help for CRF completion.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

All the authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

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

Informed consent

For this retrospective study, written consent was not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, Mehta K, Costantino JP, Wolmark N, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384:164–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sotiriou C, Wirapati P, Loi S, Harris A, Fox S, Smeds J, et al. Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:262–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liedtke C, Hatzis C, Symmans WF, Desmedt C, Haibe-Kains B, Valero V, et al. Genomic grade index is associated with response to chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3185–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bertucci F, Finetti P, Roche H, Le Doussal JM, Marisa L, Martin AL, et al. Comparison of the prognostic value of genomic grade index, Ki67 expression and mitotic activity index in early node-positive breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:625–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Toussaint J, Sieuwerts AM, Haibe-Kains B, Desmedt C, Rouas G, Harris AL, et al. Improvement of the clinical applicability of the genomic grade index through a qRT-PCR test performed on frozen and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues. BMC Genomics. 2009;10:424.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang Y, Zhang C, Liu J, Huang G. Is 18F-FDG PET accurate to predict neoadjuvant therapy response in breast cancer? A Meta-Anal Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;131:357–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Groheux D, Mankoff D, Espié M, Hindié E. (18)F-FDG PET/CT in the early prediction of pathological response in aggressive subtypes of breast cancer: review of the literature and recommendations for use in clinical trials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:983–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Groheux D, Hindié E, Giacchetti S, Hamy A-S, Berger F, Merlet P, et al. Early assessment with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography can help predict the outcome of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple negative breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50:1864–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Humbert O, Riedinger J-M, Charon-Barra C, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Desmoulins I, Lorgis V, et al. Identification of biomarkers including 18FDG-PET/CT for early prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple negative breast Cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2015.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Groheux D, Biard L, Giacchetti S, Teixeira L, Hindié E, Cuvier C, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT for the early evaluation of response to neoadjuvant treatment in triple-negative breast Cancer: influence of the chemotherapy regimen. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:536–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Thürlimann B, Senn H-J, et al. Strategies for subtypes--dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:1736–47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Piccart-Gebhart M, Thürlimann B, et al. Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast Cancer 2013. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:2206–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Denkert C, Loibl S, Müller BM, Eidtmann H, Schmitt WD, Eiermann W, et al. Ki67 levels as predictive and prognostic parameters in pretherapeutic breast cancer core biopsies: a translational investigation in the neoadjuvant GeparTrio trial. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:2786–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hao S, He Z-X, Yu K-D, Yang W-T, Shao Z-M. New insights into the prognostic value of Ki-67 labeling index in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Oncotarget. 2016;7:24824–31.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Royston P, Altman DG. Visualizing and assessing discrimination in the logistic regression model. Stat Med. 2010;29:2508–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koolen BB, Pengel KE, Wesseling J, Vogel WV, Vrancken Peeters M-JTFD, Vincent AD, et al. Sequential (18)F-FDG PET/CT for early prediction of complete pathological response in breast and axilla during neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:32–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Groheux D, Hindié E, Delord M, Giacchetti S, Hamy A-S, de Bazelaire C, et al. Prognostic impact of 18FDG-PET-CT findings in clinical stage III and IIB breast Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104:1879–87.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ohno S, Chow LWC, Sato N, Masuda N, Sasano H, Takahashi F, et al. Randomized trial of preoperative docetaxel with or without capecitabine after 4 cycles of 5-fluorouracil– epirubicin–cyclophosphamide (FEC) in early-stage breast cancer: exploratory analyses identify Ki67 as a predictive biomarker for response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;142:69–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Besusparis J, Plancoulaine B, Rasmusson A, Augulis R, Green AR, Ellis IO, et al. Impact of tissue sampling on accuracy of Ki67 immunohistochemistry evaluation in breast cancer. Diagn Pathol. 2016;11:82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Abubakar M, Orr N, Daley F, Coulson P, Ali HR, Blows F, et al. Prognostic value of automated KI67 scoring in breast cancer: a centralised evaluation of 8088 patients from 10 study groups. Breast Cancer Res. 2016;18:104.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ignatiadis M, Singhal SK, Desmedt C, Haibe-Kains B, Criscitiello C, Andre F, et al. Gene modules and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer subtypes: a pooled analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1996–2004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Groheux
    • 1
    • 2
  • L. Biard
    • 3
    • 4
  • J. Lehmann-Che
    • 2
    • 5
  • L. Teixeira
    • 2
    • 6
  • F. A. Bouhidel
    • 7
  • B. Poirot
    • 5
  • P. Bertheau
    • 7
    • 8
  • P. Merlet
    • 1
  • M. Espié
    • 2
    • 6
  • M. Resche-Rigon
    • 3
    • 4
  • C. Sotiriou
    • 9
  • P. de Cremoux
    • 2
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineSaint-Louis HospitalParis Cedex 10France
  2. 2.University Paris-DiderotSorbonne Paris CitéParisFrance
  3. 3.Department of BiostatisticsSaint-Louis HospitalParisFrance
  4. 4.University Paris-Diderot, Sorbonne Paris CitéParisFrance
  5. 5.Molecular Oncology UnitSaint-Louis HospitalParisFrance
  6. 6.Breast Diseases UnitSaint-Louis HospitalParisFrance
  7. 7.Department of PathologySaint-Louis HospitalParisFrance
  8. 8.University Paris-Diderot, Sorbonne Paris CitéParisFrance
  9. 9.Breast Cancer Translational Research LaboratoryInstitut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de BruxellesBrusellsBelgium

Personalised recommendations