Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The feasibility of dedicated breast PET for the assessment of residual tumor after neoadjuvant chemotherapy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Japanese Journal of Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the utility of ring-type dedicated breast positron emission tomography (dbPET) for the detection of the residual tumor after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC).

Materials and methods

This prospective study included 27 women with histologically proven breast cancer over a 37-month period. All patients underwent ring-type dbPET followed by whole-body PET-CT (WBPET) for preoperative tumor evaluation and re-staging after NAC. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the tumor lesion and the degree of confidence for the presence of the residual tumor were compared between pathological complete response (pCR) and non-pCR tumors. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the detection of a non-pCR tumor were compared between dbPET and WBPET.

Results

On dbPET, SUVmax was significantly higher in non-pCR than in pCR tumors (P = 0.030). The sensitivity for the detection of a non-pCR tumor was significantly higher with dbPET than with WBPET (84.2% vs 26.3%, P = 0.001). In the qualitative analysis, the sensitivity for the detection of a non-pCR tumor was also significantly higher with dbPET than with WBPET (57.9% vs 21.1%, P = 0.016).

Conclusion

The dbPET can provide more sensitive detection of residual tumor after NAC than can WBPET.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Groheux D, Espie M, Giacchetti S, Hindie E. Performance of FDG PET/CT in the clinical management of breast cancer. Radiology. 2013;266(2):388–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bos R, van Der Hoeven JJ, van Der Wall E, van Der Groep P, van Diest PJ, Comans EF, et al. Biologic correlates of (18)fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in human breast cancer measured by positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(2):379–87.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Brown RS, Wahl RL. Overexpression of glut-1 glucose transporter in human breast cancer. An immunohistochemical study. Cancer. 1993;72(10):2979–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kumar R, Chauhan A, Zhuang H, Chandra P, Schnall M, Alavi A. Clinicopathologic factors associated with false negative FDG-PET in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;98(3):267–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Avril N, Rose CA, Schelling M, Dose J, Kuhn W, Bense S, et al. Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(20):3495–502.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Thompson CJ, Murthy K, Weinberg IN, Mako F. Feasibility study for positron emission mammography. Med Phys. 1994;21(4):529–38.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Garcia Hernandez T, Vicedo Gonzalez A, Ferrer Rebolleda J, Sanchez Jurado R, Rosello Ferrando J, Brualla Gonzalez L, et al. Performance evaluation of a high resolution dedicated breast PET scanner. Med Phys. 2016;43(5):2261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Nishimatsu K, Nakamoto Y, Miyake KK, Ishimori T, Kanao S, Toi M, et al. Higher breast cancer conspicuity on dbPET compared to WB-PET/CT. Eur J Radiol. 2017;90:138–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ, Julien JP, Tubiana-Hulin M, Vandervelden C, Duchateau L. Preoperative chemotherapy in primary operable breast cancer: results from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 10902. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(22):4224–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Choi M, Park YH, Ahn JS, Im YH, Nam SJ, Cho SY, et al. Assessment of pathologic response and long-term outcome in locally advanced breast cancers after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison of pathologic classification systems. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;160(3):475–89.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 (Lond Engl). 2014;384(9938):164–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mieog JS, van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ. Preoperative chemotherapy for women with operable breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):Cd005002.

  13. Yeh E, Slanetz P, Kopans DB, Rafferty E, Georgian-Smith D, Moy L, et al. Prospective comparison of mammography, sonography, and MRI in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for palpable breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(3):868–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen JH, Bahri S, Mehta RS, Kuzucan A, Yu HJ, Carpenter PM, et al. Breast cancer: evaluation of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with 3.0-T MR imaging. Radiology. 2011;261(3):735–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kurosumi M, Akashi-Tanaka S, Akiyama F, Komoike Y, Mukai H, Nakamura S, et al. Histopathological criteria for assessment of therapeutic response in breast cancer (2007 version). Breast Cancer (Tokyo Jpn). 2008;15(1):5–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dose-Schwarz J, Tiling R, Avril-Sassen S, Mahner S, Lebeau A, Weber C, et al. Assessment of residual tumour by FDG-PET: conventional imaging and clinical examination following primary chemotherapy of large and locally advanced breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2010;102(1):35–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Eo JS, Chun IK, Paeng JC, Kang KW, Lee SM, Han W, et al. Imaging sensitivity of dedicated positron emission mammography in relation to tumor size. Breast (Edinb Scotl). 2012;21(1):66–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kalinyak JE, Berg WA, Schilling K, Madsen KS, Narayanan D, Tartar M. Breast cancer detection using high-resolution breast PET compared to whole-body PET or PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(2):260–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Yamamoto Y, Ozawa Y, Kubouchi K, Nakamura S, Nakajima Y, Inoue T. Comparative analysis of imaging sensitivity of positron emission mammography and whole-body PET in relation to tumor size. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40(1):21–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Gifu University, 1-1 Yanagido, Gifu, 501-1194, Japan

    Hiromi Koyasu, Satoshi Goshima, Yoshifumi Noda & Masayuki Matsuo

  2. Department of Radiology, Kizawa Memorial Hospital, Minokamo, Japan

    Hiromi Koyasu & Hironori Nishibori

  3. Department of Breast Surgery, Kizawa Memorial Hospital, Minokamo, Japan

    Makoto Takeuchi

  4. Department of Pathology, Kizawa Memorial Hospital, Minokamo, Japan

    Kengo Matsunaga & Tetsuya Yamada

Authors
  1. Hiromi Koyasu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Satoshi Goshima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yoshifumi Noda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hironori Nishibori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Makoto Takeuchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kengo Matsunaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tetsuya Yamada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Masayuki Matsuo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Satoshi Goshima.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koyasu, H., Goshima, S., Noda, Y. et al. The feasibility of dedicated breast PET for the assessment of residual tumor after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Jpn J Radiol 37, 81–87 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-018-0785-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-018-0785-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation