18F-FDG uptake in breast cancer correlates with immunohistochemically defined subtypes
- 791 Downloads
To determine whether a correlation exists between maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and the subtypes of breast cancer.
This retrospective study involved 548 patients (mean age 51.6 years, range 21–81 years) with 552 index breast cancers (mean size 2.57 cm, range 1.0–14.5 cm). The correlation between 18F-FDG uptake in PET/CT, expressed as SUVmax, and immunohistochemically defined subtypes (luminal A, luminal B, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive and triple negative) was analyzed.
The mean SUVmax value of the 552 tumours was 6.07 ± 4.63 (range 0.9–32.8). The subtypes of the 552 tumours were 334 (60 %) luminal A, 66 (12 %) luminal B, 60 (11 %) HER2 positive and 92 (17 %) triple negative, for which the mean SUVmax values were 4.69 ± 3.45, 6.51 ± 4.18, 7.44 ± 4.73 and 9.83 ± 6.03, respectively. In a multivariate regression analysis, triple-negative and HER2-positive tumours had 1.67-fold (P < 0.001) and 1.27-fold (P = 0.009) higher SUVmax values, respectively, than luminal A tumours after adjustment for invasive tumour size, lymph node involvement status and histologic grade.
FDG uptake was independently associated with subtypes of invasive breast cancer. Triple-negative and HER2-positive breast cancers showed higher SUVmax values than luminal A tumours.
• 18 F-FDG PET demonstrates increased tissue glucose metabolism, a hallmark of cancers.
• Immunohistochemically defined subtypes appear significantly associated with FDG uptake (expressed as SUV max ).
• Triple-negative tumours had 1.67-fold higher SUV max values than luminal A tumours.
• HER2-positive tumours had 1.27-fold higher SUV max values than luminal A tumours.
KeywordsBreast cancer PET FDG uptake Immunohistochemistry Subtype
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MEST) (No. 2012-01010846).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
- 8.Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ (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 22:1736–1747PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Niemiec J, Adamczyk A, Malecki K, Ambicka A, Rys J (2013) Tumor grade and matrix metalloproteinase 2 expression in stromal fibroblasts help to stratify the high-risk group of patients with early breast cancer identified on the basis of St Gallen recommendations. Clin Breast Cancer 13:119–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.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