Repeatability of
18F-FDG PET
Bone metastases
Breast cancer
Repeatability
Test-retest
Journal
EJNMMI research
ISSN: 2191-219X
Titre abrégé: EJNMMI Res
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101560946
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Mar 2024
27 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
09
01
2024
accepted:
06
03
2024
medline:
27
3
2024
pubmed:
27
3
2024
entrez:
27
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Standard measures of response such as Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors are ineffective for bone lesions, often making breast cancer patients that have bone-dominant metastases ineligible for clinical trials with potentially helpful therapies. In this study we prospectively evaluated the test-retest uptake variability of 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose ( For this study, nine patients with 38 bone lesions were imaged with The mean relative difference of SUVmax and SULpeak in 38 bone tumors of the first cohort were 4.3% and 6.7%. The upper and lower asymmetric limits of the repeatability coefficient were 19.4% and - 16.3% for SUVmax, and 21.2% and - 17.5% for SULpeak. In evaluating bone tumor response for breast cancer patients with bone-dominant metastases using
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Standard measures of response such as Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors are ineffective for bone lesions, often making breast cancer patients that have bone-dominant metastases ineligible for clinical trials with potentially helpful therapies. In this study we prospectively evaluated the test-retest uptake variability of 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose (
METHODS
METHODS
For this study, nine patients with 38 bone lesions were imaged with
RESULTS
RESULTS
The mean relative difference of SUVmax and SULpeak in 38 bone tumors of the first cohort were 4.3% and 6.7%. The upper and lower asymmetric limits of the repeatability coefficient were 19.4% and - 16.3% for SUVmax, and 21.2% and - 17.5% for SULpeak.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In evaluating bone tumor response for breast cancer patients with bone-dominant metastases using
Identifiants
pubmed: 38536511
doi: 10.1186/s13550-024-01093-7
pii: 10.1186/s13550-024-01093-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
32Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U01-CA148131
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R50-CA211270
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01-CA124573
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30-CA015704
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. Cancer J Clin. 2019;69:7–34. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21551 .
doi: 10.3322/caac.21551
Coleman RE. Clinical features of metastatic bone disease and risk of skeletal morbidity. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:s6243–9. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-06-0931 .
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-06-0931
Coleman RE, Rubens RD. The clinical course of bone metastases from breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1987;55:61–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1987.13 .
doi: 10.1038/bjc.1987.13
pubmed: 3814476
pmcid: 2001575
Disibio G, French SW. Metastatic patterns of cancers: results from a large autopsy study. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132:931–9. https://doi.org/10.1043/1543-2165(2008)132[931:mpocrf]2.0.co;2 .
doi: 10.1043/1543-2165(2008)132[931:mpocrf]2.0.co;2
pubmed: 18517275
Lee YT. Breast carcinoma: pattern of metastasis at autopsy. J Surg Oncol. 1983;23:175–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.2930230311 .
doi: 10.1002/jso.2930230311
pubmed: 6345937
Contractor KB, Kenny LM, Stebbing J, Rosso L, Ahmad R, Jacob J, et al. [18F]-3’Deoxy-3’-fluorothymidine positron emission tomography and breast cancer response to docetaxel. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:7664–72. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-11-0783 .
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-11-0783
pubmed: 22028493
Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
pubmed: 19097774
World Health O. WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1979.
Riedl CC, Pinker K, Ulaner GA, Ong LT, Baltzer P, Jochelson MS, et al. Comparison of FDG-PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT for monitoring therapy response in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:1428–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3703-7 .
doi: 10.1007/s00259-017-3703-7
pubmed: 28462446
pmcid: 5526620
Cook GJR, Goh V. Molecular imaging of bone metastases and their response to Therapy. J Nucl Med. 2020;61:799–806. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.234260 .
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.119.234260
pubmed: 32245899
Cook GJ, Azad GK, Goh V. Imaging bone metastases in breast Cancer: Staging and Response Assessment. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(Suppl 1):s27–33. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.157867 .
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.115.157867
Costelloe CM, Chuang HH, Madewell JE, Ueno NT. Cancer Response Criteria and Bone metastases: RECIST 1.1, MDA and PERCIST. J Cancer. 2010;1:80–92. https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.1.80 .
doi: 10.7150/jca.1.80
pubmed: 20842228
pmcid: 2938069
Gallamini A, Zwarthoed C, Borra A. Positron Emission Tomography (PET) in Oncology. Cancers. 2014;6:1821–89. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers6041821 .
doi: 10.3390/cancers6041821
pubmed: 25268160
pmcid: 4276948
Weber WA. Assessing tumor response to therapy. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):S1–10. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.057174 .
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.108.057174
Coudert B, Pierga JY, Mouret-Reynier MA, Kerrou K, Ferrero JM, Petit T, et al. Use of [(18)F]-FDG PET to predict response to neoadjuvant trastuzumab and docetaxel in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer, and addition of bevacizumab to neoadjuvant trastuzumab and docetaxel in [(18)F]-FDG PET-predicted non-responders (AVATAXHER): an open-label, randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:1493–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70475-9 .
doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70475-9
pubmed: 25456368
Connolly RM, Leal JP, Goetz MP, Zhang Z, Zhou XC, Jacobs LK, et al. TBCRC 008: early change in 18F-FDG uptake on PET predicts response to preoperative systemic therapy in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative primary operable breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:31–7. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.114.144741 .
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.114.144741
pubmed: 25476537
Connolly RM, Leal JP, Solnes L, Huang CY, Carpenter A, Gaffney K, et al. TBCRC026: phase II trial correlating standardized uptake value with pathologic complete response to Pertuzumab and Trastuzumab in breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:714–22. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2018.78.7986 .
doi: 10.1200/jco.2018.78.7986
pubmed: 30721110
pmcid: 6424139
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. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-10-2649 .
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-10-2649
pubmed: 21364034
pmcid: 3086719
Gebhart G, Gámez C, Holmes E, Robles J, Garcia C, Cortés M, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT for early prediction of response to neoadjuvant lapatinib, trastuzumab, and their combination in HER2-positive breast cancer: results from Neo-ALTTO. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1862–8. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.112.119271 .
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.112.119271
pubmed: 24092940
Groheux D, Cochet A, Humbert O, Alberini JL, Hindié E, Mankoff D.
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.115.157859
Groheux D, Biard L, Lehmann-Che J, Teixeira L, Bouhidel FA, Poirot B, et al. Tumor metabolism assessed by FDG-PET/CT and tumor proliferation assessed by genomic grade index to predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple negative breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:1279–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-3998-z .
doi: 10.1007/s00259-018-3998-z
pubmed: 29616304
Humbert O, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Riedinger JM, Coudert B, Arnould L, Cochet A, et al. Changes in 18F-FDG tumor metabolism after a first course of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: influence of tumor subtypes. Annals Oncology: Official J Eur Soc Med Oncol. 2012;23:2572–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mds071 .
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mds071
Kenny L, Coombes RC, Vigushin DM, Al-Nahhas A, Shousha S, Aboagye EO. Imaging early changes in proliferation at 1 week post chemotherapy: a pilot study in breast cancer patients with 3’-deoxy-3’-[18F]fluorothymidine positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:1339–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-007-0379-4 .
doi: 10.1007/s00259-007-0379-4
pubmed: 17333178
Kostakoglu L, Duan F, Idowu MO, Jolles PR, Bear HD, Muzi M, et al. A phase II study of 3’-Deoxy-3’-18F-Fluorothymidine PET in the Assessment of early response of breast Cancer to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: results from ACRIN 6688. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1681–9. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.160663 .
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.115.160663
pubmed: 26359256
Lin NU, Guo H, Yap JT, Mayer IA, Falkson CI, Hobday TJ, et al. Phase II study of Lapatinib in Combination with Trastuzumab in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-Positive metastatic breast Cancer: clinical outcomes and predictive value of early [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography Imaging (TBCRC 003). J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2623–31. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2014.60.0353 .
doi: 10.1200/jco.2014.60.0353
pubmed: 26169615
pmcid: 4534525
Connolly RM, Leal JP, Solnes L, Huang CY, Carpenter A, Gaffney K, et al. Updated results of TBCRC026: phase II trial correlating standardized uptake value with pathological complete response to Pertuzumab and Trastuzumab in breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:2247–56. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.21.00280 .
doi: 10.1200/jco.21.00280
pubmed: 33999652
pmcid: 8260904
Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, Herholz K, Hoekstra O, Lammertsma AA, et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:1773–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-8049(99)00229-4 .
doi: 10.1016/s0959-8049(99)00229-4
pubmed: 10673991
Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):S122–50. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.057307 .
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.108.057307
Pinker K, Riedl C, Weber WA. Evaluating tumor response with FDG PET: updates on PERCIST, comparison with EORTC criteria and clues to future developments. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:55–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3687-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s00259-017-3687-3
pubmed: 28361188
pmcid: 5542859
Pinker K. Advanced Imaging for Precision Medicine in breast Cancer: from morphology to function. Breast care (Basel Switzerland). 2017;12:208–10. https://doi.org/10.1159/000480397 .
doi: 10.1159/000480397
pubmed: 29070982
Tateishi U, Gamez C, Dawood S, Yeung HW, Cristofanilli M, Macapinlac HA. Bone metastases in patients with metastatic breast cancer: morphologic and metabolic monitoring of response to systemic therapy with integrated PET/CT. Radiology. 2008;247:189–96. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2471070567 .
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2471070567
pubmed: 18372468
Peterson LM, O’Sullivan J, Wu QV, Novakova-Jiresova A, Jenkins I, Lee JH, et al. Prospective study of serial (18)F-FDG PET and (18)F-Fluoride PET to predict time to skeletal-related events, Time to Progression, and Survival in patients with Bone-Dominant metastatic breast Cancer. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:1823–30. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.211102 .
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.118.211102
pubmed: 29748233
pmcid: 6278903
Kinahan PE, Perlman ES, Sunderland JJ, Subramaniam R, Wollenweber SD, Turkington TG, et al. The QIBA Profile for FDG PET/CT as an imaging biomarker measuring response to Cancer Therapy. Radiology. 2020;294:647–57. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019191882 .
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019191882
pubmed: 31909700
Macdonald LR, Schmitz RE, Alessio AM, Wollenweber SD, Stearns CW, Ganin A, et al. Measured count-rate performance of the Discovery STE PET/CT scanner in 2D, 3D and partial collimation acquisition modes. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53:3723–38. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/53/14/002 .
doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/53/14/002
pubmed: 18574308
pmcid: 2585489
Byrd DW, Doot RK, Allberg KC, MacDonald LR, McDougald WA, Elston BF, et al. Evaluation of Cross-calibrated (68)Ge/(68)Ga Phantoms for assessing PET/CT Measurement Bias in Oncology Imaging for single- and Multicenter trials. Tomography. 2016;2:353–60. https://doi.org/10.18383/j.tom.2016.00205 .
doi: 10.18383/j.tom.2016.00205
pubmed: 28066807
pmcid: 5214172
Kurland BF, Peterson LM, Shields AT, Lee JH, Byrd DW, Novakova-Jiresova A, et al. Test-retest reproducibility of (18)F-FDG PET/CT uptake in Cancer patients within a qualified and calibrated local network. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:608–14. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.209544 .
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.118.209544
pubmed: 30361381
pmcid: 6495239
DeGrado TR, Turkington TG, Williams JJ, Stearns CW, Hoffman JM, Coleman RE. Performance characteristics of a whole-body PET scanner. J Nucl Med. 1994;35:1398–406.
pubmed: 8046501
Peterson LM, Kurland BF, Schubert EK, Link JM, Gadi VK, Specht JM, et al. A phase 2 study of 16α-[18F]-fluoro-17β-estradiol positron emission tomography (FES-PET) as a marker of hormone sensitivity in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Mol Imaging Biology. 2014;16:431–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-013-0699-7 .
doi: 10.1007/s11307-013-0699-7
Velasquez LM, Boellaard R, Kollia G, Hayes W, Hoekstra OS, Lammertsma AA, et al. Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET in a multicenter phase I study of patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:1646–54. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.109.063347 .
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.109.063347
pubmed: 19759105
Weber WA, Gatsonis CA, Mozley PD, Hanna LG, Shields AF, Aberle DR, et al. Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: prospective Assessment in 2 Multicenter trials. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:1137–43. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.114.147728 .
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.114.147728
pubmed: 25908829
Bland JM, Altman DG. Measurement error proportional to the mean. BMJ (clinical research ed). 1996;313:106. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7049.106 .
Lipsitz SR, Laird NM, Harrington DP. Using the jackknife to estimate the variance of regression estimators from repeated measures studies. Commun Stat - Theory Methods. 1990;19:821–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610929008830234 .
doi: 10.1080/03610929008830234
Muzi M, Peterson L, Novakova A, Lee J, Kurland B, Specht J, et al. Repeatability of 18F-FDG uptake values in bone lesions from breast cancer patients with metastatic bone disease. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:1369.
Tong S, Alessio AM, Kinahan PE. Evaluation of Noise Properties in PSF-Based PET Image Reconstruction. IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium conference record Nuclear Science Symposium. 2009;2009:3042-7. https://doi.org/10.1109/nssmic.2009.5401574 .
Hatt M, Cheze-Le Rest C, Aboagye EO, Kenny LM, Rosso L, Turkheimer FE, et al. Reproducibility of 18F-FDG and 3’-deoxy-3’-18F-fluorothymidine PET tumor volume measurements. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1368–76. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.110.078501 .
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.110.078501
pubmed: 20720054
Krak NC, Boellaard R, Hoekstra OS, Twisk JW, Hoekstra CJ, Lammertsma AA. Effects of ROI definition and reconstruction method on quantitative outcome and applicability in a response monitoring trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:294–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-004-1566-1 .
doi: 10.1007/s00259-004-1566-1
pubmed: 15791438
Nakamoto Y, Zasadny KR, Minn H, Wahl RL. Reproducibility of common semi-quantitative parameters for evaluating lung cancer glucose metabolism with positron emission tomography using 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose. Mol Imaging Biology. 2002;4:171–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1536-1632(01)00004-x .
doi: 10.1016/s1536-1632(01)00004-x