Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Oncology

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 588–593 | Cite as

Value of PET-FDG in primary breast cancer based on histopathological and immunohistochemical prognostic factors

  • Pierre HeudelEmail author
  • Sebastien Cimarelli
  • Anthony Montella
  • Catherine Bouteille
  • Thomas Mognetti
Original Article

Abstract

Background

The aim of the study was to analyze in breast tumors the correlation between [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake assessed by positron emission tomography (PET) and histopathological and immunohistochemical prognostic factors.

Methods

FDG-PET combined with computed tomography (CT) was performed before surgery in 45 women with biopsy-proven primary breast cancer. The standardized uptake value (SUV) was compared with histopathological findings after surgery.

Results

A positive relationship was found between SUV and histological grade (p < 0.0001), histological type (p = 0.001), tumor size (p < 0.0435), estrogen receptor status (p < 0.0005), and progesterone receptor status (p = 0.002). FDG-PET/CT revealed unknown distant metastatic lesions in 2 of 12 patients with triple-negative breast cancer. The sensitivity of FDG-PET/CT for detecting axillary lymph node metastases was, respectively, 21% and 100% for pN1 and pN2 cases, whereas specificity was 100% for pN0.

Conclusion

SUV, a preoperative and noninvasive metabolic parameter, correlates with other known prognostic factors in breast cancer. This study provides valuable insight into the usefulness of FDG-PET/CT for preoperative staging of patients with triple-negative and poorly differentiated breast tumors but not for evaluating axillary lymph nodes and lobular carcinomas.

Keywords

PET-FDG Breast cancer Triple-negative breast cancer Monitoring therapy 

Notes

Conflict of interest

No author has any conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    American Cancer Society (2007) Cancer facts and figures. Atlanta, GA. http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/Global_cancer_facts_and_figures_2007_rev.pdf. Accessed 28 October 2009
  2. 2.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (2005) Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 365:1687–1717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wahl RL, Siegel BA, Coleman RE et al (2004) Prospective multicenter study of axillary nodal staging by positron emission tomography in breast cancer: a report of the staging breast cancer with PET Study Group. J Clin Oncol 22:277–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Veronesi U, De Cicco C, Galimberti VE et al (2007) A comparative study on the value of FDG-PET and sentinel node biopsy to identify occult axillary metastases. Ann Oncol 18:473–478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heusner TA, Kuemmel S, Hahn S et al (2009) Diagnostic value of full-dose FDG-PET/CT for axillary lymph node staging in breast cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36:1543–1550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Avril N, Rose CA, Schelling M et al (2000) Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations. J Clin Oncol 18:3495–3502PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dose Schwarz J, Bader M, Jenicke L et al (2005) Early prediction of response to chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer using sequential 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 467:1144–1150Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Avril N, Schelling M, Dose J et al (1999) Utility of PET in breast cancer. Clin Positron Imaging 2:261–271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baum RP, Przetak C (2001) Evaluation of therapy response in breast and ovarian cancer patients by positron emission tomography (PET). Q J Nucl Med 45:257–268PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bull 1:80–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kruskal WH, Wallis WA (1952) Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 47:583–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Singletary SE, Allred C, Ashley P et al (2002) Revision of the American joint Committee on cancer staging system for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 20:3628–3636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oshida M, Uno K, Suzuki M et al (1998) Predicting the prognoses of breast carcinoma patients with positron emission tomography using 2-deoxy-2-fluoro[18F]-d-glucose. Cancer 82:2227–2234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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 42:9–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bos R, van Der Hoeven JJ, van Der Wall E et al (2002) Biologic correlates of (18)fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in human breast cancer measured by positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 20:379–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 29:1317–1323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cermik TF, Mavi A, Basu S et al (2008) Impact of FDG PET on the preoperative staging of newly diagnosed breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 35:475–483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Avril N, Bense S, Ziegler SI et al (1997) Breast imaging with fluorine-18-FDG PET: quantitative image analysis. J Nucl Med 38:1186–1191PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Crowe JP, Adler LP, Shenk RR et al (1994) Positron emission tomography and breast masses: comparison with clinical, mammographic, and pathological findings. Ann Surg Oncol 1:132–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Inoue T, Yutani K, Taguchi T et al (2004) Preoperative evaluation of prognosis in breast cancer patients by [(18)F]2-deoxy-2-fluoro-d-glucose-positron emission tomography. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 130:273–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gil-Rendo A, Martinez-Regueira F, Zornoza G et al (2009) Association between [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake and prognostic parameters in breast cancer. Br J Surg 96:166–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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 112:995–1000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA et al (2006) Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast cancer Study. J Am Med Assoc 295:2492–2502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD et al (2007) Descriptive analysis of oestrogen receptor-negative, progesterone receptor-negative and HER 2-negative invasive breast cancer, the so called triple negative phenotype: a population-based study from the California cancer Registry. Cancer 109:1721–1728PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim J, Lee J, Chang E et al (2009) Selective sentinel node plus additional non-sentinel node biopsy based on an FDG PET/CT scan in early breast cancer patients: single institutional experience. World J Surg 33:943–949PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Society of Clinical Oncology 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre Heudel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sebastien Cimarelli
    • 2
  • Anthony Montella
    • 3
  • Catherine Bouteille
    • 4
  • Thomas Mognetti
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Medical OncologyLéon Bérard Cancer CenterLyonFrance
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineLéon Bérard Cancer CenterLyonFrance
  3. 3.Biostatistics UnitLéon Bérard Cancer CenterLyonFrance
  4. 4.Department of Surgical OncologyLéon Bérard Cancer CenterLyonFrance

Personalised recommendations