Top

Published in:

01-01-2012 | Review

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

Authors: Yuting Wang, Chengpeng Zhang, Jianjun Liu, Gang Huang

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 2/2012

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.

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

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 26:778–785PubMedCrossRef

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

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 30:96–102PubMed

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 20:1304–1310PubMedCrossRef

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 34:1915–1924PubMedCrossRef

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 179:1193–1199PubMed

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 37:1069–1076PubMedCrossRef

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 102:392–397PubMedCrossRef

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 234:527–534PubMedCrossRef

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 3:25PubMedCrossRef

12.

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

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 58:982–990CrossRef

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):88–95PubMedCrossRef

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 52:21–28PubMedCrossRef

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 38:1029–1036PubMedCrossRef

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 102:35–41PubMedCrossRef

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 17:247–253PubMedCrossRef

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:R37PubMedCrossRef

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 115:805–813CrossRef

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 115:1194–1202PubMedCrossRef

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):1347–1357PubMedCrossRef

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 27:535–541CrossRef

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 102:75–84PubMedCrossRef

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 24:5366–5372PubMedCrossRef

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 15:1352–1357PubMedCrossRef

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 18:1676–1688PubMed

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 18:1689–1695PubMed

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 37:931–938PubMed

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–150SPubMedCrossRef

32.

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

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 35:1773–1782PubMedCrossRef

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 92:231–238PubMedCrossRef

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 19:1573–1577PubMedCrossRef

Title: Is 18F-FDG PET accurate to predict neoadjuvant therapy response in breast cancer? A meta-analysis
Authors: Yuting Wang
Chengpeng Zhang
Jianjun Liu
Gang Huang
Publication date: 01-01-2012
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 2/2012
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1780-z

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2012

Lack of any association between functionally significant CYP2D6 polymorphisms and clinical outcomes in early breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant tamoxifen treatment

Change in physical activity during active treatment in a prospective study of breast cancer survivors

The CIRAS study: a case control study to define the clinical, immunologic, and radiographic features of aromatase inhibitor-induced musculoskeletal symptoms

The effect of mTOR inhibition alone or combined with MEK inhibitors on brain metastasis: an in vivo analysis in triple-negative breast cancer models

Head-to-head comparison of the 70-gene signature versus the 21-gene assay: cost-effectiveness and the effect of compliance

Erratum to: Evaluation of variants in the CHEK2, BRIP1 and PALB2 genes in an Irish breast cancer cohort

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer