Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

18F-FDG uptake in breast cancer correlates with immunohistochemically defined subtypes

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To determine whether a correlation exists between maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and the subtypes of breast cancer.

Methods

This retrospective study involved 548 patients (mean age 51.6 years, range 21–81 years) with 552 index breast cancers (mean size 2.57 cm, range 1.0–14.5 cm). The correlation between 18F-FDG uptake in PET/CT, expressed as SUVmax, and immunohistochemically defined subtypes (luminal A, luminal B, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive and triple negative) was analyzed.

Results

The mean SUVmax value of the 552 tumours was 6.07 ± 4.63 (range 0.9–32.8). The subtypes of the 552 tumours were 334 (60 %) luminal A, 66 (12 %) luminal B, 60 (11 %) HER2 positive and 92 (17 %) triple negative, for which the mean SUVmax values were 4.69 ± 3.45, 6.51 ± 4.18, 7.44 ± 4.73 and 9.83 ± 6.03, respectively. In a multivariate regression analysis, triple-negative and HER2-positive tumours had 1.67-fold (P < 0.001) and 1.27-fold (P = 0.009) higher SUVmax values, respectively, than luminal A tumours after adjustment for invasive tumour size, lymph node involvement status and histologic grade.

Conclusion

FDG uptake was independently associated with subtypes of invasive breast cancer. Triple-negative and HER2-positive breast cancers showed higher SUVmax values than luminal A tumours.

Key Points

• 18 F-FDG PET demonstrates increased tissue glucose metabolism, a hallmark of cancers.

• Immunohistochemically defined subtypes appear significantly associated with FDG uptake (expressed as SUV max ).

• Triple-negative tumours had 1.67-fold higher SUV max values than luminal A tumours.

• HER2-positive tumours had 1.27-fold higher SUV max values than luminal A tumours.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB et al (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406:747–752

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. van ’t Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ et al (2002) Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 415:530–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. van’t Veer LJ, Paik S, Hayes DF (2005) Gene expression profiling of breast cancer: a new tumor marker. J Clin Oncol 23:1631–1635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G et al (2004) A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 351:2817–2826

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R et al (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:10869–10874

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D et al (2009) Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:736–750

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hugh J, Hanson J, Cheang MC et al (2009) Breast cancer subtypes and response to docetaxel in node-positive breast cancer: use of an immunohistochemical definition in the BCIRG 001 trial. J Clin Oncol 27:1168–1176

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ (2011) 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 22:1736–1747

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dubsky P, Filipits M, Jakesz R et al (2013) EndoPredict improves the prognostic classification derived from common clinical guidelines in ER-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer. Ann Oncol 24:640–647

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Niemiec J, Adamczyk A, Malecki K, Ambicka A, Rys J (2013) Tumor grade and matrix metalloproteinase 2 expression in stromal fibroblasts help to stratify the high-risk group of patients with early breast cancer identified on the basis of St Gallen recommendations. Clin Breast Cancer 13:119–128

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Koolen BB, Vrancken Peeters MJ, Aukema TS et al (2012) 18F-FDG PET/CT as a staging procedure in primary stage II and III breast cancer: comparison with conventional imaging techniques. Breast Cancer Res Treat 131:117–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Aukema TS, Rutgers EJ, Vogel WV et al (2010) The role of FDG PET/CT in patients with locoregional breast cancer recurrence: a comparison to conventional imaging techniques. Eur J Surg Oncol 36:387–392

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hatt M, Groheux D, Martineau A et al (2013) Comparison Between 18F-FDG PET image-derived indices for early prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Nucl Med 54:341–349

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Groheux D, Hindie E, Delord M et al (2012) Prognostic impact of (18)FDG-PET-CT findings in clinical stage III and IIB breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 104:1879–1887

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Song BI, Lee SW, Jeong SY et al (2012) 18F-FDG uptake by metastatic axillary lymph nodes on pretreatment PET/CT as a prognostic factor for recurrence in patients with invasive ductal breast cancer. J Nucl Med 53:1337–1344

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ueda S, Kondoh N, Tsuda H et al (2008) Expression of centromere protein F (CENP-F) associated with higher FDG uptake on PET/CT, detected by cDNA microarray, predicts high-risk patients with primary breast cancer. BMC Cancer 8:384

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Specht JM, Kurland BF, Montgomery SK et al (2010) Tumor metabolism and blood flow as assessed by positron emission tomography varies by tumor subtype in locally advanced breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 16:2803–2810

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Elston CW, Ellis IO (1991) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 19:403–410

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M et al (2010) American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 28:2784–2795

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ (2007) Progress and promise: highlights of the international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2007. Ann Oncol 18:1133–1144

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jadvar H, Alavi A, Gambhir SS (2009) 18F-FDG uptake in lung, breast, and colon cancers: molecular biology correlates and disease characterization. J Nucl Med 50:1820–1827

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Edge SB, Compton CC (2010) The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1471–1474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Moretti JL et al (2011) Correlation of high 18F-FDG uptake to clinical, pathological and biological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38:426–435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Avril N, Menzel M, Dose J et al (2001) Glucose metabolism of breast cancer assessed by 18F-FDG PET: histologic and immunohistochemical tissue analysis. J Nucl Med 42:9–16

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Buck A, Schirrmeister H, Kuhn T et al (2002) FDG uptake in breast cancer: correlation with biological and clinical prognostic parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 29:1317–1323

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kennecke H, Yerushalmi R, Woods R et al (2010) Metastatic behavior of breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol 28:3271–3277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gianni L, Dafni U, Gelber RD et al (2011) Treatment with trastuzumab for 1 year after adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer: a 4-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 12:236–244

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Caudle AS, Yu TK, Tucker SL et al (2012) Local-regional control according to surrogate markers of breast cancer subtypes and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients undergoing breast conserving therapy. Breast Cancer Res 14:R83

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Basu S, Chen W, Tchou J 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 disease characterization. Cancer 112:995–1000

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Palaskas N, Larson SM, Schultz N et al (2011) 18F-fluorodeoxy-glucose positron emission tomography marks MYC-overexpressing human basal-like breast cancers. Cancer Res 71:5164–5174

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ueda S, Tsuda H, Asakawa H et al (2008) Clinicopathological and prognostic relevance of uptake level using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography fusion imaging (18F-FDG PET/CT) in primary breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 38:250–258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Koolen BB, Vrancken Peeters MJ, Wesseling J et al (2012) Association of primary tumour FDG uptake with clinical, histopathological and molecular characteristics in breast cancer patients scheduled for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 39:1830–1838

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Koolen BB, Pengel KE, Wesseling J et al (2013) FDG PET/CT during neoadjuvant chemotherapy may predict response in ER-positive/HER2-negative and triple negative, but not in HER2-positive breast cancer. Breast. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2012.12.020

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kumar R, Chauhan A, Zhuang H, Chandra P, Schnall M, Alavi A (2006) Clinicopathologic factors associated with false negative FDG-PET in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 98:267–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MEST) (No. 2012-01010846).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 28 Yongon-dong, Chongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Korea

    Hye Ryoung Koo, Nariya Cho, Jung Min Chang, Min Sun Bae, Won Hwa Kim, Su Hyun Lee, Mirinae Seo & Woo Kyung Moon

  2. Department of Radiology, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

    Hye Ryoung Koo & Jeong Seon Park

  3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

    Keon Wook Kang

  4. Department of Radiology, Konkuk University Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Mi Young Kim

  5. Department of Radiology, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan, Republic of Korea

    Jin You Kim

Authors
  1. Hye Ryoung Koo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeong Seon Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Keon Wook Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nariya Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jung Min Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Min Sun Bae
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Won Hwa Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Su Hyun Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mi Young Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jin You Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Mirinae Seo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Woo Kyung Moon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Woo Kyung Moon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Koo, H.R., Park, J.S., Kang, K.W. et al. 18F-FDG uptake in breast cancer correlates with immunohistochemically defined subtypes. Eur Radiol 24, 610–618 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3037-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3037-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation