Molecular Imaging and Biology

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 636–644 | Cite as

Metabolic Tumor Burden Assessed by Dual Time Point [18F]FDG PET/CT in Locally Advanced Breast Cancer: Relation with Tumor Biology

  • Ana María Garcia-Vicente
  • Julián Pérez-Beteta
  • Víctor Manuel Pérez-García
  • David Molina
  • German Andrés Jiménez-Londoño
  • Angel Soriano-Castrejón
  • Alicia Martínez-González
Research Article



The aim of the study was to investigate the influence of dual time point 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose ([18F]FDG) positron emission tomography/x-ray computed tomography (PET/CT) on the standard uptake value (SUV) and volume-based metabolic variables of breast lesions and their relation with biological characteristics and molecular phenotypes.


Retrospective analysis including 67 patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC). All patients underwent a dual time point [18F]FDG PET/CT, 1 h (PET-1) and 3 h (PET-2) after [18F]FDG administration. Tumors were segmented following a three-dimensional methodology. Semiquantitative metabolic variables (SUVmax, SUVmean, and SUVpeak) and volume-based variables (metabolic tumor volume, MTV, and total lesion glycolysis, TLG) were obtained. Biologic prognostic parameters, such as the hormone receptors status, p53, HER2 expression, proliferation rate (Ki-67), and grading were obtained. Molecular phenotypes and risk-classification [low: luminal A, intermediate: luminal B HER2 (−) or luminal B HER2 (+), and high: HER2 pure or triple negative] were established. Relations between clinical and biological variables with the metabolic parameters were studied. The relevance of each metabolic variable in the prediction of phenotype risk was assessed using a multivariate analysis.


SUV-based variables and TLG obtained in the PET-1 and PET-2 showed high and significant correlations between them. MTV and SUV variables (SUVmax, SUVmean, and SUVpeak) where only marginally correlated. Significant differences were found between mean SUV variables and TLG obtained in PET-1 and PET-2. High and significant associations were found between metabolic variables obtained in PET-1 and their homonymous in PET-2. Based on that, only relations of PET-1 variables with biological tumor characteristics were explored. SUV variables showed associations with hormone receptors status (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001 for estrogen and progesterone receptor, respectively) and risk-classification according to phenotype (SUVmax, p = 0.003; SUVmean, p = 0.004; SUVpeak, p = 0.003). As to volume-based variables, only TLG showed association with hormone receptors status (estrogen, p < 0.001; progesterone, p = 0.031), risk-classification (p = 0.007), and grade (p = 0.036). Hormone receptor negative tumors, high-grade tumors, and high-risk phenotypes showed higher TLG values. No association was found between the metabolic variables and Ki-67, HER2, or p53 expression.


Statistical differences were found between mean SUV-based variables and TLG obtained in the dual time point PET/CT. Most of PET-derived parameters showed high association with molecular factors of breast cancer. However, dual time point PET/CT did not offer any added value to the single PET acquisition with respect to the relations with biological variables, based on PET-1 SUV, and volume-based variables were predictors of those obtained in PET-2.

Key words

[18F]FDG PET/CT Breast cancer Volume-based metabolic variables Clinicopathological factors Molecular phenotypes 


  1. 1.
    García Vicente AM, Soriano Castrejón A, León Martín A et al (2013) Molecular subtypes of breast cancer: metabolic correlation with 18F-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Molec Imag 40:1304–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bolouri MS, Elias SG, Wisner DJ et al (2013) Triple-negative and non-triple-negative invasive breast cancer: association between MR and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET imaging. Radiology 269:354–361CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Koo HR, Park JS, Kang KW et al (2014) 18F-FDG uptake in breast cancer correlates with immunohistochemically defined subtypes. Eur Radiol 24:610–618CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zytoon AA, Murakami K, El-Kholy M-R et al (2008) Dual time point FDG-PET/CT imaging. Potential tool for diagnosis of breast cancer. Clin Radiol 63:1213–1227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mavi A, Urhan M, Yu JQ et al (2006) Dual time point 18F-FDG PET imaging detects breast cancer with high sensitivity and correlates well with histologic subtypes. J Nucl Med 47:1440–1446PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Basu S, Chen W, Tchou J et al (2008) Comparison of triple-negative and estrogen receptorpositive/ 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 112:995–1000CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shimoda W, Hayashi M, Murakami K et al (2007) The relationship between FDG uptake in PET scans and biological behavior in breast cancer. Breast Cancer 14:260–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    García Vicente AM, Soriano Castrejón A, Relea Calatayud F et al (2012) 18F-FDG retention index and biologic prognostic parameters in breast cancer. Clin Nucl Med 37:460–466Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    García Vicente AM, Cruz Mora MA, León Martín AA et al (2014) Glycolitic activity with 18F-FDG PET/CT predicts final neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in breast cancer. Tumour Biol 35:11613–11620CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS et al (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 22:1736–1747CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lu P, Yu L, Li Y et al (2010) A correlation study between maximum standardized uptake values and pathology and clinical staging in non-small cell lung cancer. Nucl Med Commun 31:646–651PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koksal D, Demiragn F, Bayiz H et al (2013) The correlation of SUVmax with pathological characteristics of primary tumor and the value of tumor/ lymph node SUVmax ratio for predicting metastasis to lymph nodes in resected NSCLC patients. J Cardiothorac Surg 8:63Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kajary K, Tokes T, Dank M et al (2015) Correlation of the value of 18F-FDG uptake, described by SUVmax, SUVavg, metabolic tumour volume and total lesion glycolysis, to clinicopathological prognostic factors and biological subtypes in breast cancer. Nucl Med Commun 36:28–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaida H, Toh U, Hayakawa M et al (2013) The relationship between 18F-FDG metabolic volumetric parameters and clinicopathological factors of breast cancer. Nucl Med Commun 34:562–570CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    García Vicente AM, Soriano Castrejón A, Pruneda González RE et al (2016) Basal-18F-FDG PET/CT as a predictive biomarker of tumor response for neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol 35:81-87Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kahraman D, Scheffler M, Zander T et al (2011) Quantitative analysis of response to treatment with erlotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer using 18F -FDG and 3′-deoxy-3′-18F-fluorothymidine PET. J Nucl Med 52:1871–1877CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee SM, Bae SK, Kim TH et al (2014) Value of 18F -FDG PET/CT for early prediction of pathologic response (by residual cancer burden criteria) of locally advanced breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Nucl Med 39:882–886CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Moretti J-L 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 38:426–435CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Deng SM, Zhang W, Zhang B et al (2015) Correlation between the uptake of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) and the expression of proliferation-associated antigen Ki-67 in cancer patients: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 10:e0129028CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© World Molecular Imaging Society 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ana María Garcia-Vicente
    • 1
  • Julián Pérez-Beteta
    • 2
  • Víctor Manuel Pérez-García
    • 2
  • David Molina
    • 2
  • German Andrés Jiménez-Londoño
    • 1
  • Angel Soriano-Castrejón
    • 1
  • Alicia Martínez-González
    • 2
  1. 1.Nuclear Medicine DepartmentUniversity General HospitalCiudad RealSpain
  2. 2.Instituto de Matemática Aplicada a la Ciencia y la IngenieríaUniversidad de Castilla-La ManchaCiudad RealSpain

Personalised recommendations