Comparison of FDG-PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT for monitoring therapy response in patients with metastatic breast cancer
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.
KeywordsFDG 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.
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.
- 1.United States Food and Drug Administration Backgrounder. Cancer therapies: accelerating approval and expanding access. Ann Pharmacother. 1996;30(7–8):907.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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.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
- 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
- 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
- 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.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.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). http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/153557-156