The relationship between FDG uptake in PET scans and biological behavior in breast cancer
- 73 Downloads
Background: Positron emission tomography (PET) is a non-invasive imaging modality used in the diagnosis and staging of breast cancer. However, several factors can affect fluoro-deoxyglucose (FDG) uptake by a tumor. To clarify the parameters that most affect FDG accumulation in tumors, the relationship between standardized uptake values (SUVs) and clinicopathological factors and immunohistopatho-logical analysis was investigated in breast cancer.
Material and Methods: PET studies were performed preoperatively on 37 patients with breast carcinoma. SUVs were counted at one hour (early phase) and at two hours (delayed phase) after FDG injection. The relationships between SUVs and 13 clinical, pathological and immunohistchemical factors were studied.
Results: A significant association was found between FDG accumulation and early and delayed phase mitotic counts (p = 0.0018 and 0.0010, respectively), Ki67 positive cell percentage (p = 0.0098 and 0.0062, respectively), and nuclear grade (p = 0.0232 and 0.0195, respectively). On the other hand, nodal status weakly correlated with the delayed phase (p = 0.0907). However, other clinicopathological parameters and immunohistopathological status, which included tumor size, age, histology, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and Her2/neu overexpression, did not correlate significantly with FDG uptake.
Conclusion: Mitotic count and Ki67 reflect cellular aggressiveness. These parameters were strongly correlated with tracer uptake. Thus our data suggested that the biological behavior of breast cancer is reflected in the variation of FDG uptake by the tumor. However, whether FDG uptake is a true prognostic and predictive factor remains to be confirmed in larger studies over an extended period of time.
Key wordsPositron emission tomography FDG Mitotic count Standardized uptake value Breast cancer
Positron emission tomography
Standardized uptake value
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 9).Avril N, Dose J, Janicke F, Ziegler S, Romer W, Weber W, Herz M, Nathrath W, Graeff H, Schwaiger M: Assessment of axillary lymph node involvement in breast cancer patients with positron emission tomography using radiolabeled 2-(fluorine-18)fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose.J Natl Cancer Inst 88:1204–1209, 1996.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10).Crippa F, Agrest R, Seregni E, Greco M, Pascali C, Bogni A, Chiesa C, DeSanctis V, Delledonne V, Savadori B, Leutner M, Bombardiert E: Prospective evaluation of [18F]FDG positron emission tomography (PET) in the presurgical staging of the axilla in breast cancer: comparison between PET and postoperative pathology.J Nucl Med 39:4–8, 1998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11).Folpe AL, Lyles RH, Sprouse JT, Conrad EU, Eary JF: F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography as a predictor of pathologic grade and other prognostic variables in bone and soft tissue sarcoma.Clin Cancer Res 4:1279–1287, 2000.Google Scholar
- 15).Sakamoto G, Inaji H, Akiyama F, Haga S, Hiraoka M, Inai K, Iwase T, Kobayashi S, Sano M, Sato T, Sonoo H, Tsuchiya S, Watanabe T: The Japanese Breast Cancer Society. General rules for clinical and pathological recording of breast cancer 2005.Breast Cancer 12 Suppl: 1–27, 2005.Google Scholar
- 17).Bankfalv A, Boecker W, Reiner A: Comparison of automated and manual determination of HER2 status in breast cancer for diagnostic use: a comparative methodological study using the Ventana BenchMark automated staining system and manual tests.Int J Oncol 25:929–935, 2004.Google Scholar
- 18).Hayashi M, Okabe T, Sano M, Honma K: Comparing immunohistochemistry to enzyme immuno assays for estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor status.Jpn J Breast Cancer 17:306–310, 2002 (in Japanese with English abstract).Google Scholar
- 24).Dehdashti F, Mortimer JE, Siegel BA, Griffeth LK, Bonasera TJ, Fusselman MJ, Detert DD, Cutler PD, Katzenellenbogen JA, Welch MJ: Positron tomographic assessment of estrogen receptors in breast cancer: a comparison with FDG-PET andin vitro receptor assays.J Nucl Med 36:1766–1774, 1995.PubMedGoogle Scholar