Journal
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING
Volume 41, Issue 8, Pages 1534-1543Publisher
SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-014-2744-4
Keywords
Arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD); Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG); Positron emission tomography (PET); Estrogen receptor (ER); Progesterone receptor (PR); Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)
Funding
- Korea Healthcare Technology R&D Project, Ministry for Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [A070001, A100716]
- Korea Health Promotion Institute [A100716] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
- National Research Foundation of Korea [2012M2A2A7035853] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Purpose Imaging biomarkers from functional imaging modalities were assessed as potential surrogate markers of disease status. Specifically, in this prospective study, we investigated the relationships between functional imaging parameters and histological prognostic factors and breast cancer subtypes. Methods In total, 43 patients with large or locally advanced invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) were analyzed (47.6 +/- 7.5 years old). Ga-68-Labeled arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) and F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) were performed. The maximum and average standardized uptake values (SUVmax and SUVavg) from RGD PET/CT and SUVmax and SUVavg from FDG PET/CT were the imaging parameters used. For histological prognostic factors, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression was identified using immunohistochemistry (IHC) or fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). Four breast cancer subtypes, based on ER/PR and HER2 expression (ER/PR+,Her2-, ER/PR+,Her2+, ER/PR-,Her2+, and ER/PR-,Her2-), were considered. Results Quantitative FDG PET parameters were significantly higher in the ER-negative group (15.88 +/- 8.73 vs 10.48 +/- 6.01, p = 0.02 for SUVmax; 9.40 +/- 5.19 vs 5.92 +/- 4.09, p = 0.02 for SUVavg) and the PR-negative group (8.37 +/- 4.94 vs 4.79 +/- 3.93, p = 0.03 for SUVavg). Quantitative RGD PET parameters were significantly higher in the HER2-positive group (2.42 +/- 0.59 vs 2.90 +/- 0.75, p = 0.04 for SUVmax; 1.60 +/- 0.38 vs 1.95 +/- 0.53, p = 0.04 for SUVavg) and showed a significant positive correlation with the HER2/CEP17 ratio (r = 0.38, p = 0.03 for SUVmax and r = 0.46, p < 0.01 for SUVavg). FDG PET parameters showed significantly higher values in the ER/PR-,Her2- subgroup versus the ER/PR+,Her2- or ER/PR+,Her2+ subgroups, while RGD PET parameters showed significantly lower values in the ER/PR-,Her2- subgroup versus the other subgroups. There was no correlation between FDG and RGD PET parameters in the overall group. Only the ER/PR-,Her2- subgroup showed a significant positive correlation between FDG and RGD PET parameters (r = 0.59, p = 0.03 for SUVmax). Conclusion Ga-68-RGD and F-18-FDG PET/CT are promising functional imaging modalities for predicting biomarkers and molecular phenotypes in breast cancer patients.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available