Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is 18F-FDG PET accurate to predict neoadjuvant therapy response in breast cancer? A meta-analysis

  • Review
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Clinical evidence regarding the value of 18F-FDG PET for therapy responses assessment in breast cancer is increasing. The objective of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of 18F-FDG PET in predicting responses to neoadjuvant therapies with meta-analysis and explore its optimal regimen for clinical use. Articles in English language relating to the accuracy of 18F-FDG PET for this utility were retrieved. Methodological quality was assessed by QUADAS tool. Pooled estimation and subgroup analysis data were obtained by statistical analysis. Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria and involved 920 pathologically confirmed patients in total (mean age 49.8 years, all female). Methodological quality was relatively high. To predict histopathological response in primary breast lesions by PET, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic odds ratio were 84% (95% CI, 78–88%), 66% (95% CI, 62–70%), 50% (95% CI, 44–55%), 91% (95% CI, 87–94%), and 11.90 (95% CI, 6.33–22.36), respectively. In regional lymph nodes, sensitivity and NPV of PET were 92% (95% CI, 83–97%) and 88% (95% CI, 76–95%), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that performing a post-therapy 18F-FDG PET early (after the 1st or 2nd cycle of chemotherapy) was significantly better than later (accuracy 76% vs. 65%, P = 0.001). Furthermore, the best correlation with pathology was yielded by employing a reduction rate (RR) cutoff value of standardized uptake value between 55 and 65%. 18F-FDG PET is useful to predict neoadjuvant therapy response in breast cancer. However, the relatively low specificity and PPV still call for caution. It is suggested to perform PET in an earlier course of therapy and use RR cutoff value between 55 and 65%, which might potentially identify non-responders early. However, further prospective studies are warranted to assess this regimen and adequately position PET in treatment management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

18F-FDG PET:

18F-fluor-18-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography

NCT:

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy

LABC:

Locally advanced breast cancer

pCR:

Pathological complete response

PPV:

Positive predictive value

NPV:

Negative predictive value

DOR:

Diagnostic odds ratio

AUC:

Areas under the curves

SUV:

Standardized uptake value

RR:

Reduction rate

SROC:

Summary receiver operating characteristic curves

IDC:

Invasive ductal cancer

ILC:

Invasive lobular cancer

NSIBC:

Non-special invasive breast cancer

MRD:

Minimal residual disease

FNA:

Fine needle aspiration

SNB:

Sentinel node biopsy

DUR:

Dose uptake rate of FDG

TBR:

Tumor to background ratio

DFS:

Disease-free survival

References

  1. Wolff AC, Davidson DN (2000) Primary systemic therapy in operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 18:1558–1569

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, Geyer CE, Kahlenberg MS, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, Hoehn JL et al (2008) Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol 26:778–785

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Norbert Avril SS, Roylance R (2009) Response to therapy in breast cancer. J Nucl Med 50:55–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wolmark N et al (2001) Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer: nine-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 30:96–102

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rouzier R, Extra JM, Klijanienko J, Falcou MC, Asselain B, Vincent-Salomon A et al (2002) Incidence and prognostic significance of complete axillary downstaging after primary chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with T1 to T3 tumors and cytologically proven axillary metastatic lymph nodes. J Clin Oncol 20:1304–1310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Berriolo-Riedinger A, Touzery C, Riedinger JM, Toubeau M, Coudert B, Arnould L, Boichot C, Cochet A, Fumoleau P, Brunotte F (2007) [18F]FDG-PET predicts complete pathological response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:1915–1924

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Partridge SC, Gibbs JE, Lu Y, Esserman LJ, Sudilovsky D, Hylton NM (2002) Accuracy of MR imaging for revealing residual breast cancer in patients who have undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:1193–1199

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Straver ME, Aukema TS, Olmos RA, Rutgers EJ, Gilhuijs KG, Schot ME, Vogel WV, Peeters MJ (2010) Feasibility of FDG PET/CT to monitor the response of axillary lymph node metastases to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37:1069–1076

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Choi JH, Lim HI, Lee SK, Kim WW, Kim SM, Cho E, Ko EY, Han BK, Park YH, Ahn JS, Im YH, Lee JE et al (2010) The role of PET CT to evaluate the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer: comparison with ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging. J Surg Oncol 102:392–397

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rosen EL, Turkington TG, Soo MS, Baker JA, Coleman RE (2005) Detection of primary breast carcinoma with a dedicated, large-field-of-view FDG PET mammography device: initial experience. Radiology 234:527–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J (2003) The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 3:25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Brit Med J 327:557–560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Reitsmaa JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyta PM, Zwindermana AH (2005) Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 58:982–990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Song F, Khan KS, Dinnes J, Sutton AJ (2002) Asymmetric funnel plots and publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy. Int J Epidemiol 31(1):88–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Park JS, Moon WK, Lyou CY, Cho N, Kang KW, Chung JK (2011) The assessment of breast cancer response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Acta Radiol 52:21–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rousseau C, Devillers A, Campone M, Campion L, Ferrer L, Sagan C, Ricaud M, Bridji B, Kraeber-Bodéré F (2011) FDG PET evaluation of early axillary lymph node response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and III breast cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38:1029–1036

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Dose-Schwarz J, Tiling R, Avril-Sassen S, Mahner S, Lebeau A, Webe C, Schwaiger M, Ja¨nicke F, Untch M, Avril N (2010) 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 102:35–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Jung SY, Ki-Kim S, Byung-Ho N, Min SY, Lee SJ, Park C, Kwon Y, Kim EA, Ko KL, Park IH, Lee KS, Shin KH et al (2010) Prognostic impact of [18F] FDG-PET in operable breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol 17:247–253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schneider-Kolsky ME, Hart S, Fox J, Midolo P, Stuckey J, Hofman M, Ganju V (2010) The role of chemotherapeutic drugs in the evaluation of breast tumour response to chemotherapy using serial FDG-PET. Breast Cancer Res 12:R37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Martoni AA, Zamagni C, Quercia S, Rosati M, Cacciari N, Bernardi A, Musto A, Fanti S, Santini D, Taffurelli M (2010) Early 18F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography may identify a subset of patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer who will not respond optimally to preoperative chemotherapy. Cancer 115:805–813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ueda S, Tsuda H, Saeki T, Omata J, Osaki A, Shigekawa T, Ishida J, Tamura K, Abe Y, Moriya T, Yamamoto J (2010) Early metabolic response to neoadjuvant letrozole, measured by FDG PET/CT, is correlated with a decrease in the Ki67 labeling index in patients with hormone receptor-positive primary breast cancer: a pilot study. Breast Cancer. doi:10.1007/s12282-010-0212-y

  22. Prati R, Minami CA, Gornbein JA, Debruhl N, Chung D, Pharm D, Chang HR (2009) Accuracy of clinical evaluation of locally advanced breast cancer in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer 115:1194–1202

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kumar A, Kumar R, Seenu V, Gupta SD, Chawla M, Malhotra A, Mehta SN (2009) The role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in evaluation of early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Eur Radiol 19(6):1347–1357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dose-Schwarz J, Tiling R, Sassen S, Mahner S, Kahlert S, Harbeck N, Lebeau A, Brenner W, Schwaiger M, Jaenicke F, Avril N (2009) Monitoring primary systemic therapy of large and locally advanced breast cancer by using sequential positron emission tomography imaging with [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose. J Clin Oncol 27:535–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. McDermott GM, Welch A, Staff RT, Gilbert FJ, Schweiger L, Semple SI, Tim K, Smith AD, Hutcheon AW, Miller ID, Smith IC, Heys SD (2007) Monitoring primary breast cancer throughout chemotherapy using FDG-PET. Breast Cancer Res Treat 102:75–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Rousseau C, Devillers A, Sagan C, Ferrer L, Bridji B, Campion L, Ricaud M, Bourbouloux E, Doutriaux I, Clouet M, Berton-Rigaud D, Bouriel C et al (2006) Monitoring of early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and III breast cancer by [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 24:5366–5372

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kim SJ, Kim SK, Lee ES, Ro J, Kang Sh (2004) Predictive value of [18F]FDG PET for pathological response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 15:1352–1357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Smith BC, Hutcheon AW, Miller ID, Payne S, Chilcott F, Waikar S, Whitaker T, Ah-See AK, Eremin O, Heys SD, Gilbert FJ et al (2000) Positron emission tomography using [18F]-fluorodeoxy-d-glucose to predict the pathologic response of breast cancer to primary chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 18:1676–1688

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Schelling M, Avril N, Na¨hrig J, Kuhn W, Ro¨mer W, Sattler D, Werner M, Dose J, Ja¨nicke F, Graeff H, Schwaiger M (2000) Positron emission tomography using [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose for monitoring primary chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 18:1689–1695

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Bassa P, Kim EE, Inoue T, Wong FC, Korkmaz M, Yang DJ, Wong WH, Hicks KW, Buzdar AU, Podoloff DA (1996) Evaluation of preoperative chemotherapy using PET with fluorine 18-fluorodeoxyglucose in breast cancer. J Nucl Med 37:931–938

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for pet response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 50:122S–150S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Weber WA (2009) Assessing tumor response to therapy. J Nucl Med 50:1S–10S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, Herholz K, Hoekstra O, Lammertsma AA, Pruim J, Price P (1999) Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. Eur J Cancer 35:1773–1782

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Schott AF, Roubidoux MA, Helvie MA, Hayes DF, Kleer CG, Newman LA, Pierce LJ, Griffith KA, Murray S, Hunt KA et al (2005) Clinical and radiologic assessments to predict breast cancer pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 92:231–238

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Emmering J, Krak NC, Van der Hoeven JJ, Spreeuwenberg MD, Twisk JW, Meijer S, Pinedo HM, Hoekstra OS (2008) Preoperative [18F] FDG-PET after chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer: prognostic value as compared with histopathology. Ann Oncol 19:1573–1577

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors thank Dr. Gang Huang (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China) for critical review and correction of the manuscript. The authors thank the funding below for supporting the work: National Natural Science Foundation of China, Project Number: 30830038, 81071180, 30970842; Shanghai Leading Academic Discipline Project, Project Number: S30203; Key Project of Science and Technology Committee of Shanghai, Project Number: 10JC1410000.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, 227 South Chongqing Rd., Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

    Yuting Wang, Chengpeng Zhang, Jianjun Liu & Gang Huang

Authors
  1. Yuting Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chengpeng Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jianjun Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gang Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gang Huang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wang, Y., Zhang, C., Liu, J. et al. Is 18F-FDG PET accurate to predict neoadjuvant therapy response in breast cancer? A meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 131, 357–369 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1780-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1780-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation