Advertisement

Japanese Journal of Radiology

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 81–87 | Cite as

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

  • Hiromi Koyasu
  • Satoshi GoshimaEmail author
  • Yoshifumi Noda
  • Hironori Nishibori
  • Makoto Takeuchi
  • Kengo Matsunaga
  • Tetsuya Yamada
  • Masayuki Matsuo
Original Article
  • 66 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Breast cancer Dedicated breast positron emission tomography Whole-body PET-CT Residual tumor Neoadjuvant chemotherapy 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

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.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown RS, Wahl RL. Overexpression of glut-1 glucose transporter in human breast cancer. An immunohistochemical study. Cancer. 1993;72(10):2979–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thompson CJ, Murthy K, Weinberg IN, Mako F. Feasibility study for positron emission mammography. Med Phys. 1994;21(4):529–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Radiological Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiromi Koyasu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Satoshi Goshima
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yoshifumi Noda
    • 1
  • Hironori Nishibori
    • 2
  • Makoto Takeuchi
    • 3
  • Kengo Matsunaga
    • 4
  • Tetsuya Yamada
    • 4
  • Masayuki Matsuo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyGifu UniversityGifuJapan
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyKizawa Memorial HospitalMinokamoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Breast SurgeryKizawa Memorial HospitalMinokamoJapan
  4. 4.Department of PathologyKizawa Memorial HospitalMinokamoJapan

Personalised recommendations