Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Japanese Journal of Radiology
Published in: Japanese Journal of Radiology 1/2019

01-01-2019 | Original Article

The feasibility of dedicated breast PET for the assessment of residual tumor after neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Authors: Hiromi Koyasu, Satoshi Goshima, Yoshifumi Noda, Hironori Nishibori, Makoto Takeuchi, Kengo Matsunaga, Tetsuya Yamada, Masayuki Matsuo

Published in: Japanese Journal of Radiology | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the utility of ring-type dedicated breast positron emission tomography (dbPET) for the detection of the residual tumor after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC).

Materials and methods

This prospective study included 27 women with histologically proven breast cancer over a 37-month period. All patients underwent ring-type dbPET followed by whole-body PET-CT (WBPET) for preoperative tumor evaluation and re-staging after NAC. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the tumor lesion and the degree of confidence for the presence of the residual tumor were compared between pathological complete response (pCR) and non-pCR tumors. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the detection of a non-pCR tumor were compared between dbPET and WBPET.

Results

On dbPET, SUVmax was significantly higher in non-pCR than in pCR tumors (P = 0.030). The sensitivity for the detection of a non-pCR tumor was significantly higher with dbPET than with WBPET (84.2% vs 26.3%, P = 0.001). In the qualitative analysis, the sensitivity for the detection of a non-pCR tumor was also significantly higher with dbPET than with WBPET (57.9% vs 21.1%, P = 0.016).

Conclusion

The dbPET can provide more sensitive detection of residual tumor after NAC than can WBPET.
Literature
1.
Groheux D, Espie M, Giacchetti S, Hindie E. Performance of FDG PET/CT in the clinical management of breast cancer. Radiology. 2013;266(2):388–405.CrossRef
2.
Bos R, van Der Hoeven JJ, van Der Wall E, van Der Groep P, van Diest PJ, Comans EF, et al. Biologic correlates of (18)fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in human breast cancer measured by positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(2):379–87.CrossRef
3.
Brown RS, Wahl RL. Overexpression of glut-1 glucose transporter in human breast cancer. An immunohistochemical study. Cancer. 1993;72(10):2979–85.CrossRef
4.
Kumar R, Chauhan A, Zhuang H, Chandra P, Schnall M, Alavi A. Clinicopathologic factors associated with false negative FDG-PET in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;98(3):267–74.CrossRef
5.
Avril N, Rose CA, Schelling M, Dose J, Kuhn W, Bense S, et al. Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(20):3495–502.CrossRef
6.
Thompson CJ, Murthy K, Weinberg IN, Mako F. Feasibility study for positron emission mammography. Med Phys. 1994;21(4):529–38.CrossRef
7.
Garcia Hernandez T, Vicedo Gonzalez A, Ferrer Rebolleda J, Sanchez Jurado R, Rosello Ferrando J, Brualla Gonzalez L, et al. Performance evaluation of a high resolution dedicated breast PET scanner. Med Phys. 2016;43(5):2261.CrossRef
8.
Nishimatsu K, Nakamoto Y, Miyake KK, Ishimori T, Kanao S, Toi M, et al. Higher breast cancer conspicuity on dbPET compared to WB-PET/CT. Eur J Radiol. 2017;90:138–45.CrossRef
9.
van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ, Julien JP, Tubiana-Hulin M, Vandervelden C, Duchateau L. Preoperative chemotherapy in primary operable breast cancer: results from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 10902. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(22):4224–37.CrossRef
10.
Choi M, Park YH, Ahn JS, Im YH, Nam SJ, Cho SY, et al. Assessment of pathologic response and long-term outcome in locally advanced breast cancers after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparison of pathologic classification systems. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;160(3):475–89.CrossRef
11.
Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, Mehta K, Costantino JP, Wolmark N, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet (Lond Engl). 2014;384(9938):164–72.CrossRef
12.
Mieog JS, van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ. Preoperative chemotherapy for women with operable breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):Cd005002.
13.
Yeh E, Slanetz P, Kopans DB, Rafferty E, Georgian-Smith D, Moy L, et al. Prospective comparison of mammography, sonography, and MRI in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for palpable breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(3):868–77.CrossRef
14.
Chen JH, Bahri S, Mehta RS, Kuzucan A, Yu HJ, Carpenter PM, et al. Breast cancer: evaluation of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with 3.0-T MR imaging. Radiology. 2011;261(3):735–43.CrossRef
15.
Kurosumi M, Akashi-Tanaka S, Akiyama F, Komoike Y, Mukai H, Nakamura S, et al. Histopathological criteria for assessment of therapeutic response in breast cancer (2007 version). Breast Cancer (Tokyo Jpn). 2008;15(1):5–7.CrossRef
16.
Dose-Schwarz J, Tiling R, Avril-Sassen S, Mahner S, Lebeau A, Weber C, et al. 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. 2010;102(1):35–41.CrossRef
17.
Eo JS, Chun IK, Paeng JC, Kang KW, Lee SM, Han W, et al. Imaging sensitivity of dedicated positron emission mammography in relation to tumor size. Breast (Edinb Scotl). 2012;21(1):66–71.CrossRef
18.
Kalinyak JE, Berg WA, Schilling K, Madsen KS, Narayanan D, Tartar M. Breast cancer detection using high-resolution breast PET compared to whole-body PET or PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(2):260–75.CrossRef
19.
Yamamoto Y, Ozawa Y, Kubouchi K, Nakamura S, Nakajima Y, Inoue T. Comparative analysis of imaging sensitivity of positron emission mammography and whole-body PET in relation to tumor size. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40(1):21–5.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The feasibility of dedicated breast PET for the assessment of residual tumor after neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Authors
Hiromi Koyasu
Satoshi Goshima
Yoshifumi Noda
Hironori Nishibori
Makoto Takeuchi
Kengo Matsunaga
Tetsuya Yamada
Masayuki Matsuo
Publication date
01-01-2019
Publisher
Springer Japan
Published in
Japanese Journal of Radiology / Issue 1/2019
Print ISSN: 1867-1071
Electronic ISSN: 1867-108X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-018-0785-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Japanese Journal of Radiology 1/2019 Go to the issue

Original Article

Hilar and mediastinal sarcoid-like reaction after the treatment of malignant tumors: imaging features and natural course on 18F-FDG-PET/CT

Invited Review

Improvement of image quality at CT and MRI using deep learning

Editorial

The Third Asian Radiology Summit

Invited Review

Technical and clinical overview of deep learning in radiology

Invited Review

Machine learning studies on major brain diseases: 5-year trends of 2014–2018

Original Article

The effectiveness of additional lead-shielding drape and low pulse rate fluoroscopy in protecting staff from scatter radiation during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)