Comparison of FDG-PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT for monitoring therapy response in patients with metastatic breast cancer

  • Christopher C. RiedlEmail author
  • Katja Pinker
  • Gary A. Ulaner
  • Leonard T. Ong
  • Pascal Baltzer
  • Maxine S. Jochelson
  • Heather L. McArthur
  • Mithat Gönen
  • Maura Dickler
  • Wolfgang A. Weber
Original Article



The aim of this study was to compare fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) for the prediction of progression-free survival (PFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) in patients with stage IV breast cancer undergoing systemic therapy.


Sixty-five patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with first- or second-line systemic therapy in prospective clinical trials were included. Response to treatment was evaluated by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 for CE-CT and by PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST), respectively.


All responders by RECIST (n = 22) were also responders by PERCIST, but 40% (17/43) of non-responders by RECIST were responders by PERCIST. Responses according to RECIST and PERCIST both correlated with PFS, but PERCIST showed a significantly higher predictive accuracy (concordance index for PFS: 0.70 vs. 0.60). One-year PFS for responders vs. non-responders by RECIST was 59% vs. 27%, compared to 63% vs. 0% by PERCIST. Four-year DSS of responders and non-responders by RECIST was 50% and 38%, respectively (p = 0.2, concordance index: 0.55) as compared to 58% vs. 18% for PERCIST (p < 0.001, concordance index: 0.65). Response on PET/CT was also a significantly better predictor for DSS than disease control on CE-CT.


In patients with metastatic breast cancer, tumor response on PET/CT appears to be a superior predictor of PFS and DSS than response on CE-CT. Monitoring tumor response by PET/CT may increase the power of clinical trials using tumor response as an endpoint, and may improve patient management in clinical routine.


FDG PET/CT Breast cancer Treatment response Survival 


Compliance with ethical standards


This study was funded by a Susan G. Komen for the Cure research grant (KG110441) and MSKCC Biostatistics Core (P30 CA008748).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This HIPAA-compliant, retrospective, single-institution study was performed under institutional review board approval.

Informed consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study.

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 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Supplementary material

259_2017_3703_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 23 kb)


  1. 1.
    United States Food and Drug Administration Backgrounder. Cancer therapies: accelerating approval and expanding access. Ann Pharmacother. 1996;30(7–8):907.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 1981;47(1):207–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(3):205–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228–47. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burzykowski T, Buyse M, Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Sledge G, Carmichael J, Luck HJ, et al. Evaluation of tumor response, disease control, progression-free survival, and time to progression as potential surrogate end points in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(12):1987–92. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.10.8407.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weber WA, Gatsonis CA, Mozley PD, Hanna LG, Shields AF, Aberle DR, et al. Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET/CT in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: prospective assessment in 2 multicenter trials. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(8):1137–43. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.114.147728.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jacene HA, Leboulleux S, Baba S, Chatzifotiadis D, Goudarzi B, Teytelbaum O, et al. Assessment of interobserver reproducibility in quantitative 18F-FDG PET and CT measurements of tumor response to therapy. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(11):1760–9. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.109.063321.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hildebrandt MG, Gerke O, Baun C, Falch K, Hansen JA, Farahani ZA, et al. [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) in suspected recurrent breast cancer: a prospective comparative study of dual-time-point FDG-PET/CT, contrast-enhanced CT, and bone scintigraphy. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(16):1889–97. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.5185.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Delord M, de Roquancourt A, Merlet P, Hamy AS, et al. Prognostic impact of 18F-FDG PET/CT staging and of pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(3):377–85. doi: 10.1007/s00259-014-2941-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mortazavi-Jehanno N, Giraudet AL, Champion L, Lerebours F, Le Stanc E, Edeline V, et al. Assessment of response to endocrine therapy using FDG PET/CT in metastatic breast cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(3):450–60. doi: 10.1007/s00259-011-1981-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schelling M, Avril N, Nahrig J, Kuhn W, Romer W, Sattler D, et al. Positron emission tomography using [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose for monitoring primary chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(8):1689–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rousseau C, Devillers A, Sagan C, Ferrer L, Bridji B, Campion L, et al. Monitoring of early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and III breast cancer by [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(34):5366–72. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.05.7406.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gebhart G, Lamberts LE, Wimana Z, Garcia C, Emonts P, Ameye L, et al. Molecular imaging as a tool to investigate heterogeneity of advanced HER2-positive breast cancer and to predict patient outcome under trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1): the ZEPHIR trial. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(4):619–24. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv577.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):122S–50S. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.108.057307.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gonen M, Heller G. Concordance probability and discriminatory power in proportional hazards regression. Biometrika. 2005;92(4):965–70. doi: 10.1093/biomet/92.4.965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hendlisz A, Golfinopoulos V, Garcia C, Covas A, Emonts P, Ameye L, et al. Serial FDG-PET/CT for early outcome prediction in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(7):1687–93. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdr554.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Coleman RE. Clinical features of metastatic bone disease and risk of skeletal morbidity. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12(20 Pt 2):6243s–9s. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0931.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Specht JM, Tam SL, Kurland BF, Gralow JR, Livingston RB, Linden HM, et al. Serial 2-[18F] fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) to monitor treatment of bone-dominant metastatic breast cancer predicts time to progression (TTP). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;105(1):87–94. doi: 10.1007/s10549-006-9435-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stafford SE, Gralow JR, Schubert EK, Rinn KJ, Dunnwald LK, Livingston RB, et al. Use of serial FDG PET to measure the response of bone-dominant breast cancer to therapy. Acad Radiol. 2002;9(8):913–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Niikura N, Costelloe CM, Madewell JE, Hayashi N, Yu TK, Liu J, et al. FDG-PET/CT compared with conventional imaging in the detection of distant metastases of primary breast cancer. Oncologist. 2011;16(8):1111–9. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0089.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tateishi U, Gamez C, Dawood S, Yeung HW, Cristofanilli M, Macapinlac HA. Bone metastases in patients with metastatic breast cancer: morphologic and metabolic monitoring of response to systemic therapy with integrated PET/CT. Radiology. 2008;247(1):189–96. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2471070567.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Caglar M, Kupik O, Karabulut E, Hoilund-Carlsen PF. Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer patients in the PET/CT era: do we still need the bone scan? Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol. 2016;35(1):3–11. doi: 10.1016/j.remn.2015.08.006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Glendenning J, Cook G. Imaging breast cancer bone metastases: current status and future directions. Semin Nucl Med. 2013;43(4):317–23. doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2013.02.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Morris PG, Lynch C, Feeney JN, Patil S, Howard J, Larson SM, et al. Integrated positron emission tomography/computed tomography may render bone scintigraphy unnecessary to investigate suspected metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(19):3154–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.5743.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thatcher N, Chang A, Parikh P, Rodrigues Pereira J, Ciuleanu T, von Pawel J, et al. Gefitinib plus best supportive care in previously treated patients with refractory advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre study (Iressa survival evaluation in lung cancer). Lancet. 2005;366(9496):1527–37. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67625-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Riedl C, Pinker K, Ong L, Jochelson MS, Ulaner G, McArthur HL, et al. FDG-PET/CT versus contrast enhanced CT for prediction of progression-free and disease-specific survival in stage IV breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(Abstract).

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher C. Riedl
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Katja Pinker
    • 1
    • 3
  • Gary A. Ulaner
    • 1
    • 2
  • Leonard T. Ong
    • 1
  • Pascal Baltzer
    • 3
  • Maxine S. Jochelson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Heather L. McArthur
    • 4
  • Mithat Gönen
    • 5
  • Maura Dickler
    • 6
  • Wolfgang A. Weber
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyWeill Cornell Medical CollegeNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided TherapyMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria
  4. 4.Department of Medicine, Breast OncologyCedars-Sinai Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA
  5. 5.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  6. 6.Department of MedicineMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations