Breast Cancer

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 167–173

Predictive value of FDG PET/CT for pathologic axillary node involvement after neoadjuvant chemotherapy

  • Bhumsuk Keam
  • Seock-Ah Im
  • Youngil Koh
  • Sae-Won Han
  • Do-Youn Oh
  • Nariya Cho
  • Jee Hyun Kim
  • Wonshik Han
  • Keon Wook Kang
  • Woo Kyung Moon
  • Tae-You Kim
  • In Ae Park
  • Dong-Young Noh
  • June-Key Chung
  • Yung-Jue Bang
Original Article

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this study was to determine the usefulness of sequential FDG PET/CTs for prediction of axillary lymph node (ALN) status after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC).

Methods

Seventy-seven stage II or III breast cancer patients who received 3 cycles of neoadjuvant docetaxel/doxorubicin chemotherapy were enrolled in this prospective study. FDG PET/CTs were acquired before chemotherapy and after the first cycle of chemotherapy for early metabolic response prediction.

Results

Patients with pN0 had significantly lower post-NAC ALN standard uptake value (SUV) than those who were pN+ (1.22 ± 1.46 in pN0 vs. 2.13 ± 1.99 in pN+, P = 0.017). Post-NAC ALN size on CT also differed according to pathologic ALN status (6.3 mm in pN0 vs. 11.1 mm in pN+, P = 0.014). When serial FDG PET/CT and chest CT were used, patients with an SUV > 1.5 and post-NAC ALN size ≥10 mm on CT did not achieve pN0 (specificity 100% and positive predictive value 100%).

Conclusions

The serial FDG PET/CT after NAC could predict the pathologic status of ALN before surgery in stage II/III breast cancer. Our findings suggest that the combined use of serial FDG PET/CTs and chest CT might provide better information regarding ALN before surgery.

Keywords

18F-FDG PET Breast cancer Neoadjuvant chemotherapy Axillary node 

References

  1. 1.
    Fitzgibbons PL, Page DL, Weaver D, Thor AD, Allred DC, Clark GM, et al. Prognostic factors in breast cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:966–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baslaim MM, Al Malik OA, Al-Sobhi SS, Ibrahim E, Ezzat A, Ajarim D, et al. Decreased axillary lymph node retrieval in patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Am J Surg. 2002;184(4):299–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Estevez LG, Gradishar WJ. Evidence-based use of neoadjuvant taxane in operable and inoperable breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:3249–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shimizu C, Ando M, Kouno T, Katsumata N, Fujiwara Y. Current trends and controversies over pre-operative chemotherapy for women with operable breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2007;37:1–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kwan W, Jackson J, Weir LM, Dingee C, McGregor G, Olivotto IA. Chronic arm morbidity after curative breast cancer treatment: prevalence and impact on quality of life. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:4242–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chao C, McMasters K. The current status of sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer. Adv Surg. 2002;36:167–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lyman GH, Giuliano AE, Somerfield MR, Benson AB 3rd, Bodurka DC, Burstein HJ, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7703–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Newman EA, Sabel MS, Nees AV, Schott A, Diehl KM, Cimmino VM, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy performed after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is accurate in patients with documented node-positive breast cancer at presentation. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2946–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sabel MS, Schott AF, Kleer CG, Merajver S, Cimmino VM, Diehl KM, et al. Sentinel node biopsy prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Am J Surg. 2003;186:102–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khan A, Sabel MS, Nees A, Diehl KM, Cimmino VM, Kleer CG, et al. Comprehensive axillary evaluation in neoadjuvant chemotherapy patients with ultrasonography and sentinel lymph node biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2005;12:697–704.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kinoshita T. Sentinel lymph node biopsy is feasible for breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer. 2007;14:10–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gil-Rendo A, Zornoza G, Garcia-Velloso MJ, Regueira FM, Beorlegui C, Cervera M. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with sentinel lymph node biopsy for evaluation of axillary involvement in breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2006;93:707–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greco M, Crippa F, Agresti R, Seregni E, Gerali A, Giovanazzi R, et al. Axillary lymph node staging in breast cancer by 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose-positron emission tomography: clinical evaluation and alternative management. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:630–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Veronesi U, De Cicco C, Galimberti VE, Fernandez JR, Rotmensz N, Viale G, et al. A comparative study on the value of FDG-PET and sentinel node biopsy to identify occult axillary metastases. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:473–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wahl RL, Siegel BA, Coleman RE, Gatsonis CG. 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. 2004;22:277–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zornoza G, Garcia-Velloso MJ, Sola J, Regueira FM, Pina L, Beorlegui C. 18F-FDG PET complemented with sentinel lymph node biopsy in the detection of axillary involvement in breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004;30:15–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cermik TF, Mavi A, Basu S, Alavi A. Impact of FDG PET on the preoperative staging of newly diagnosed breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:475–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim J, Lee J, Chang E, Kim S, Suh K, Sul J, et al. 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. 2009;33:943–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ueda S, Tsuda H, Asakawa H, Omata J, Fukatsu K, Kondo N, et al. Utility of 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose emission tomography/computed tomography fusion imaging (18F-FDG PET/CT) in combination with ultrasonography for axillary staging in primary breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2008;8:165.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hodgson NC, Gulenchyn KY. Is there a role for positron emission tomography in breast cancer staging? J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:712–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Keam B, Im SA, Koh Y, Han SW, Oh DY, Cho N, et al. Early metabolic response using FDG PET/CT and molecular phenotypes of breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. BMC Cancer. 2011;11(1):452.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Keam B, Im SA, Kim HJ, Oh DY, Kim JH, Lee SH, et al. Clinical significance of axillary nodal ratio in stage II/III breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;116:153–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Keam B, Im SA, Kim HJ, Oh DY, Kim JH, Lee SH, et al. Prognostic impact of clinicopathologic parameters in stage II/III breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant docetaxel and doxorubicin chemotherapy: paradoxical features of the triple negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2007;7:203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Recht A, Edge SB, Solin LJ, Robinson DS, Estabrook A, Fine RE, et al. Postmastectomy radiotherapy: clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:1539–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Han S, Kim SB, Kang SS, Noh WC, Paik NS, Chang ES, et al. A phase II study of neoadjuvant docetaxel plus doxorubicin (KBCS-01) in stage II, III breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;98:57–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Greene F, Page D, Fleming I, Fritz A, Balch C, Haller D, et al. AJCC cancer staging manual, 6th edn. New York: Springer; 2002.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    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;92:205–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lee KH, Im SA, Oh DY, Lee SH, Chie EK, Han W, et al. Prognostic significance of bcl-2 expression in stage III breast cancer patients who had received doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel as adjuvant chemotherapy. BMC Cancer. 2007;7:63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Noh DY, Yun IJ, Kim JS, Kang HS, Lee DS, Chung JK, et al. Diagnostic value of positron emission tomography for detecting breast cancer. World J Surg. 1998;22:223–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chung A, Liou D, Karlan S, Waxman A, Fujimoto K, Hagiike M, et al. Preoperative FDG-PET for axillary metastases in patients with breast cancer. Arch Surg. 2006;141:783–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fehr MK, Hornung R, Varga Z, Burger D, Hess T, Haller U, et al. Axillary staging using positron emission tomography in breast cancer patients qualifying for sentinel lymph node biopsy. Breast J. 2004;10:89–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Taira N, Ohsumi S, Takabatake D, Hara F, Takashima S, Aogi K, et al. Determination of indication for sentinel lymph node biopsy in clinical node-negative breast cancer using preoperative 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography fusion imaging. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2009;39:16–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lim HS, Yoon W, Chung TW, Kim JK, Park JG, Kang HK, et al. FDG PET/CT for the detection and evaluation of breast diseases: usefulness and limitations. Radiographics. 2007;27(Suppl 1):S197–213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rousseau C, Bourbouloux E, Campion L, Fleury N, Bridji B, Chatal JF, et al. Brown fat in breast cancer patients: analysis of serial (18)F-FDG PET/CT scans. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33:785–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Breast Cancer Society 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bhumsuk Keam
    • 1
    • 2
  • Seock-Ah Im
    • 1
    • 2
  • Youngil Koh
    • 1
  • Sae-Won Han
    • 1
    • 2
  • Do-Youn Oh
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nariya Cho
    • 3
  • Jee Hyun Kim
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wonshik Han
    • 4
  • Keon Wook Kang
    • 2
    • 5
  • Woo Kyung Moon
    • 3
  • Tae-You Kim
    • 1
    • 2
  • In Ae Park
    • 6
  • Dong-Young Noh
    • 4
  • June-Key Chung
    • 2
    • 5
  • Yung-Jue Bang
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Internal MedicineSeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulKorea
  2. 2.Cancer Research InstituteSeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulKorea
  3. 3.Department of RadiologySeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulKorea
  4. 4.Department of SurgerySeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulKorea
  5. 5.Department of Nuclear MedicineSeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulKorea
  6. 6.Department of PathologySeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations