Increased lesion detectability in patients with locally advanced breast cancer-A pilot study using dynamic whole-body [

Breast cancer Dynamic imaging PET/CT Tumor detectability

Journal

EJNMMI research
ISSN: 2191-219X
Titre abrégé: EJNMMI Res
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101560946

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
25 Mar 2024
Historique:
received: 13 12 2023
accepted: 14 03 2024
medline: 26 3 2024
pubmed: 26 3 2024
entrez: 26 3 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Accurate diagnosis of axillary lymph node (ALN) metastases is essential for prognosis and treatment planning in breast cancer. Evaluation of ALN is done by ultrasound, which is limited by inter-operator variability, and by sentinel lymph node biopsy and/or ALN dissection, none of which are without risks and/or long-term complications. It is known that conventional 2-deoxy-2-[ This study prospectively included ten women with locally advanced breast cancer who were referred for an [ D-WB [ The trial is registered in clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05110443, https://www. gov/study/NCT05110443?term=NCT05110443&rank=1 .

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Accurate diagnosis of axillary lymph node (ALN) metastases is essential for prognosis and treatment planning in breast cancer. Evaluation of ALN is done by ultrasound, which is limited by inter-operator variability, and by sentinel lymph node biopsy and/or ALN dissection, none of which are without risks and/or long-term complications. It is known that conventional 2-deoxy-2-[
RESULTS RESULTS
This study prospectively included ten women with locally advanced breast cancer who were referred for an [
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
D-WB [
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION BACKGROUND
The trial is registered in clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05110443, https://www.
CLINICALTRIALS RESULTS
gov/study/NCT05110443?term=NCT05110443&rank=1 .

Identifiants

pubmed: 38528239
doi: 10.1186/s13550-024-01096-4
pii: 10.1186/s13550-024-01096-4
doi:

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT05110443']

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

31

Subventions

Organisme : Aarhus Universitets Forskningsfond
ID : AUFF-E-2017-7-17
Organisme : Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen
ID : NONE

Informations de copyright

© 2024. The Author(s).

Références

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:7–33.
doi: 10.3322/caac.21708 pubmed: 35020204
Cardoso F, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, Penault-Llorca F, Poortmans P, Rubio IT, et al. Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:1194–220.
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz173 pubmed: 31161190
Brackstone M, Baldassarre FG, Perera FE, Cil T, Mac Gregor MC, Dayes IS, et al. Management of the Axilla in early-stage breast Cancer: Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) and ASCO Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:3056–82.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.00934 pubmed: 34279999
Schulze T, Mucke J, Markwardt J, Schlag PM, Bembenek A. Long-term morbidity of patients with early breast cancer after sentinel lymph node biopsy compared to axillary lymph node dissection. J Surg Oncol. 2006;93:109–19.
doi: 10.1002/jso.20406 pubmed: 16425290
Verbelen H, Gebruers N, Eeckhout FM, Verlinden K, Tjalma W. Shoulder and arm morbidity in sentinel node-negative breast cancer patients: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;144:21–31.
doi: 10.1007/s10549-014-2846-5 pubmed: 24496928
Verbelen H, Tjalma W, Meirte J, Gebruers N. Long-term morbidity after a negative sentinel node in breast cancer patients. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2019;28:1–8.
doi: 10.1111/ecc.13077
Gennari A, André F, Barrios CH, Cortés J, de Azambuja E, DeMichele A, et al. ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for the diagnosis, staging and treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer ☆. Ann Oncol. 2021;32:1475–95.
doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.09.019 pubmed: 34678411
Chung HL, Shin K, Sun J, Leung JWT. Extra-axillary nodal metastases in breast cancer: comparison of ultrasound, MRI, PET/CT, and CT. Clin Imaging. 2021;79:113–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2021.03.028 pubmed: 33933824
Davidson T, Shehade N, Nissan E, Sklair-Levy M, Ben-Haim S, Barshack I et al. PET/CT in breast cancer staging is useful for evaluation of axillary lymph node and distant metastases. Surg Oncol [Internet]. 2021;38:101567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2021.101567 .
Riegger C, Koeninger A, Hartung V, Otterbach F, Kimmig R, Forsting M, et al. Comparison of the diagnostic value of FDG-PET/CT and axillary ultrasound for the detection of lymph node metastases in breast cancer patients. Acta Radiol. 2012;53:1092–8.
doi: 10.1258/ar.2012.110635 pubmed: 23002144
Liang X, Yu J, Wen B, Xie J, Cai Q, Yang Q. MRI and FDG-PET/CT based assessment of axillary lymph node metastasis in early breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol. 2017;72:295–301.
doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.12.001 pubmed: 28139203
Robertson IJ, Hand F, Kell MR. FDG-PET/CT in the staging of local/regional metastases in breast cancer. Breast [Internet]. 2011;20:491–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2011.07.002 .
Zhang X, Liu Y, Luo H, Zhang J. PET/CT and MRI for identifying Axillary Lymph Node metastases in breast Cancer patients: systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020;52:1840–51.
doi: 10.1002/jmri.27246 pubmed: 32567090
Kitajima K, Fukushima K, Miyoshi Y, Katsuura T, Igarashi Y, Kawanaka Y, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT for axillary lymph node staging in patients with breast cancer. Jpn J Radiol. 2016;34:220–8.
doi: 10.1007/s11604-015-0515-1 pubmed: 26715510
Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:932–45.
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.106.035774 pubmed: 17504879
Groheux D, Hindie E. Breast cancer: initial workup and staging with FDG PET/CT. Clin Transl Imaging [Internet]. 2021;9:221–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-021-00426-z .
Zangheri B, Messa C, Picchio M, Gianolli L, Landoni C, Fazio F. PET/CT and breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31.
Hyo SL, Yoon W, Tae WC, Jae KK, Jin GP, Heoung KK, et al. FDG PET/CT for the detection and evaluation of breast diseases: usefulness and limitations. Radiographics. 2007;27:197–214.
doi: 10.1148/rg.27si075507
Ferdova E, Baxa J, Naršanska A, Ondřej HES, Fínek J, Topolčan O, et al. Low-dose high-resolution18F-FDG-PET/CT using time-of-flight and point-spread function reconstructions: a role in the detection of breast carcinoma axillary lymph node metastases. Anticancer Res. 2018;38:4145–8.
doi: 10.21873/anticanres.12706 pubmed: 29970542
Sasada S, Masumoto N, Kimura Y, Kajitani K, Emi A, Kadoya T, et al. Identification of axillary lymph node metastasis in patients with breast cancer using dual-phase FDG PET/CT. Am J Roentgenol. 2019;213:1129–35.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.19.21373
Choi WH, Yoo IR, O JH, Kim SH, Chung SK. The value of dual-time-point 18F-FDG PET/CT for identifying axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer patients. Br J Radiol. 2011;84:593–9.
doi: 10.1259/bjr/56324742 pubmed: 21081574 pmcid: 3473484
Mori M, Fujioka T, Katsuta L, Tsuchiya J, Kubota K, Kasahara M, et al. Diagnostic performance of time-of-flight PET/CT for evaluating nodal metastasis of the axilla in breast cancer. Nucl Med Commun. 2019;40:958–64.
doi: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001057 pubmed: 31365505
Park J, Byun BH, Noh WC, Lee SS, Kim HA, Kim EK, et al. Lymph node to primary tumor SUV ratio by 18F-FDG PET/CT and the prediction of axillary lymph node metastases in breast cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2014;39:249–53.
doi: 10.1097/RLU.0b013e3182a75477
Dias AH, Pedersen MF, Danielsen H, Munk OL, Gormsen LC. Clinical feasibility and impact of fully automated multiparametric PET imaging using direct patlak reconstruction: evaluation of 103 dynamic whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT scans. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:837–50.
doi: 10.1007/s00259-020-05007-2 pubmed: 32894338
Mankoff DA, Dunnwald LK, Gralow JR, Ellis GK, Charlop A, Lawton TJ, et al. Blood Flow and Metabolism in locally advanced breast Cancer: relationship to response to Therapy. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:500–9.
pubmed: 11937594
Dunnwald LK, Doot RK, Specht JM, Gralow JR, Ellis GK, Livingston RB, et al. PET tumor metabolism in locally advanced breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: value of static versus kinetic measures of fluorodeoxyglucose uptake. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:2400–9.
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2649 pubmed: 21364034 pmcid: 3086719
Kajáry K, Lengyel Z, Tőkés AM, Kulka J, Dank M, Tőkés T. Dynamic FDG-PET/CT in the initial staging of primary breast Cancer: clinicopathological correlations. Pathol Oncol Res. 2020;26:997–1006.
doi: 10.1007/s12253-019-00641-0 pubmed: 30941738
Sundaraiya S, Raja T, Nangia S, Sirohi B, Patil S. Role of dynamic and parametric whole-body FDG PET/CT imaging in molecular characterization of primary breast cancer: a single institution experience. Nucl Med Commun. 2022;43:1015–25.
doi: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001596 pubmed: 35950356
Patlak CS, Blasberg RG, Fenstermacher JD. Graphical evaluation of blood-to-brain transfer constants from multiple-time uptake data. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1983;3:1–7.
doi: 10.1038/jcbfm.1983.1 pubmed: 6822610
Patlak CS, Blasberg RG. Graphical evaluation of blood-to-brain transfer constants from multiple-time uptake data. Generalizations J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1985;5:584–90.
doi: 10.1038/jcbfm.1985.87 pubmed: 4055928
Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420–8.
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 pubmed: 18839484
Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of selecting and reporting Intraclass correlation coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15:155–63.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 pubmed: 27330520 pmcid: 4913118
Teichgraeber DC, Guirguis MS, Whitman GJ. Breast cancer staging: Updates in the AJCC cancer staging manual, 8th edition, and current challenges for radiologists, from the AJR special series on cancer staging. Am J Roentgenol. 2021;217:278–90.
Dias AH, Hansen AK, Munk OL, Gormsen LC. Normal values for 18F-FDG uptake in organs and tissues measured by dynamic whole body multiparametric FDG PET in 126 patients. EJNMMI Res. 2022;12.
Salaün PY, Abgral R, Malard O, Querellou-Lefranc S, Quere G, Wartski M, et al. Good clinical practice recommendations for the use of PET/CT in oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47:28–50.
doi: 10.1007/s00259-019-04553-8 pubmed: 31637482
Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJG, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:328–54.
doi: 10.1007/s00259-014-2961-x pubmed: 25452219
Fahrni G, Karakatsanis NA, Di Domenicantonio G, Garibotto V, Zaidi H. Does whole-body patlak 18F-FDG PET imaging improve lesion detectability in clinical oncology? Eur Radiol. 2019;29:4812–21.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5966-1 pubmed: 30689031
Suzuki A, Nakamoto Y, Terauchi T, Kawamoto M, Okumura Y, Suzuki Y, et al. Inter-observer variations in FDG-PET interpretation for cancer screening. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2007;37:615–22.
doi: 10.1093/jjco/hym064 pubmed: 17704533
Sørensen JS, Vilstrup MH, Holm J, Vogsen M, Bülow JL, Ljungstrøm L et al. Interrater agreement and reliability of percist and visual assessment when using 18f-fdg-pet/ct for response monitoring of metastatic breast cancer. Diagnostics. 2020;10.
Wumener X, Zhang Y, Wang Z, Zhang M, Zang Z, Huang B, et al. Dynamic FDG-PET imaging for differentiating metastatic from non-metastatic lymph nodes of lung cancer. Front Oncol. 2022;12:1–11.
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1005924
Kömek H, Can C, Güzel Y, Oruç Z, Gündoğan C, Yildirim ÖA, et al. 68Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT, a new step in breast cancer imaging: a comparative pilot study with the 18F-FDG PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med. 2021;35:744–52.
doi: 10.1007/s12149-021-01616-5 pubmed: 33934311
Groheux D, Cochet A, Humbert O, Alberini JL, Hindié E, Mankoff D. 18F-FDG PET/CT for staging and restaging of breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:S17–26.
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.115.157859
Dias AH, Smith AM, Shah V, Pigg D, Gormsen LC, Munk OL. Clinical validation of a population-based input function for 20-min dynamic whole-body 18F-FDG multiparametric PET imaging. EJNMMI Phys. 2022;9.

Auteurs

Mette Abildgaard Pedersen (MA)

Department of Nuclear Medicine & PET Centre, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 165, Aarhus, Denmark. meabpe@rm.dk.
Department of Biomedicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. meabpe@rm.dk.
Steno Diabetes Center Aarhus, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. meabpe@rm.dk.

André H Dias (AH)

Department of Nuclear Medicine & PET Centre, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 165, Aarhus, Denmark.

Karin Hjorthaug (K)

Department of Nuclear Medicine & PET Centre, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 165, Aarhus, Denmark.

Lars C Gormsen (LC)

Department of Nuclear Medicine & PET Centre, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 165, Aarhus, Denmark.
Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.

Joan Fledelius (J)

Department of Nuclear Medicine & PET Centre, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 165, Aarhus, Denmark.

Anna Lyhne Johnsson (AL)

Department of Radiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

Signe Borgquist (S)

Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

Trine Tramm (T)

Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Department of Pathology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

Ole Lajord Munk (OL)

Department of Nuclear Medicine & PET Centre, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 165, Aarhus, Denmark.
Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.

Mikkel Holm Vendelbo (MH)

Department of Nuclear Medicine & PET Centre, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 165, Aarhus, Denmark.
Department of Biomedicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Steno Diabetes Center Aarhus, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

Classifications MeSH