The Pattern of Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Prospective Head-to-Head Comparison of [F]FDG-PET/CT and CE-CT

Overview

Journal J Imaging

Publisher MDPI

Specialty Radiology

Date 2023 Oct 27

PMID 37888329

Authors

Rosa Gram-Nielsen

Ivar Yannick Christensen

Mohammad Naghavi-Behzad

Sara Elisabeth Dahlsgaard-Wallenius

Nick Moldrup Jakobsen

Oke Gerke

Jeanette Dupont Jensen

Marianne Ewertz

Malene Grubbe Hildebrandt

Marianne Vogsen

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The study aimed to compare the metastatic pattern of breast cancer and the intermodality proportion of agreement between [F]FDG-PET/CT and CE-CT. Women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) were enrolled prospectively and underwent a combined [F]FDG-PET/CT and CE-CT scan to diagnose MBC. Experienced nuclear medicine and radiology physicians evaluated the scans blinded to the opposite scan results. Descriptive statistics were applied, and the intermodality proportion of agreement was used to compare [F]FDG-PET/CT and CE-CT. In total, 76 women with verified MBC were enrolled in the study. The reported number of site-specific metastases for [F]FDG-PET/CT vs. CE-CT was 53 (69.7%) vs. 44 (57.9%) for bone lesions, 31 (40.8%) vs. 43 (56.6%) for lung lesions, and 16 (21.1%) vs. 23 (30.3%) for liver lesions, respectively. The proportion of agreement between imaging modalities was 76.3% (95% CI 65.2-85.3) for bone lesions; 82.9% (95% CI 72.5-90.6) for liver lesions; 57.9% (95% CI 46.0-69.1) for lung lesions; and 59.2% (95% CI 47.3-70.4) for lymph nodes. In conclusion, bone and distant lymph node metastases were reported more often by [F]FDG-PET/CT than CE-CT, while liver and lung metastases were reported more often by CE-CT than [F]FDG-PET/CT. Agreement between scans was highest for bone and liver lesions and lowest for lymph node metastases.

Citing Articles

The role of FDG PET assessment in patients with advanced breast cancer treated with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors in the second-line setting.

Kubeczko M, Polakiewicz-Gilowska A, DAmico A, Chrabanski O, Swiderska K, Chmielik E Front Oncol. 2024; 14:1454844.

PMID: 39697231 PMC: 11653356. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1454844.

References

Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Delord M, Hindie E, Vercellino L, Cuvier C . 18F-FDG PET/CT in staging patients with locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer: comparison to conventional staging. J Nucl Med. 2012; 54(1):5-11. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.112.106864. View

Vogsen M, Jensen J, Gerke O, Bak Jylling A, Asmussen J, Christensen I . Benefits and harms of implementing [F]FDG-PET/CT for diagnosing recurrent breast cancer: a prospective clinical study. EJNMMI Res. 2021; 11(1):93. PMC: 8458550. DOI: 10.1186/s13550-021-00833-3. View

Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Moretti J, Porcher R, Espie M, Lehmann-Che J . Correlation of high 18F-FDG uptake to clinical, pathological and biological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010; 38(3):426-35. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-010-1640-9. View

Vogsen M, Naghavi-Behzad M, Harbo F, Jakobsen N, Gerke O, Asmussen J . 2-[F]FDG-PET/CT is a better predictor of survival than conventional CT: a prospective study of response monitoring in metastatic breast cancer. Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):5552. PMC: 10076261. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-32727-w. View

Cha C, Ahn S, Yoo T, Kim K, Bae S, Yoon C . Local Treatment in Addition to Endocrine Therapy in Hormone Receptor-Positive and HER2-Negative Oligometastatic Breast Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Multicenter Analysis. Breast Care (Basel). 2020; 15(4):408-414. PMC: 7490659. DOI: 10.1159/000503847. View

Windsor G, Bai H, Lourenco A, Jiao Z . Application of artificial intelligence in predicting lymph node metastasis in breast cancer. Front Radiol. 2023; 3:928639. PMC: 10364981. DOI: 10.3389/fradi.2023.928639. View

Cardoso F, Paluch-Shimon S, Senkus E, Curigliano G, Aapro M, Andre F . 5th ESO-ESMO international consensus guidelines for advanced breast cancer (ABC 5). Ann Oncol. 2020; 31(12):1623-1649. PMC: 7510449. DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.09.010. View

Ulaner G, Jhaveri K, Chandarlapaty S, Hatzoglou V, Riedl C, Lewis J . Head-to-Head Evaluation of F-FES and F-FDG PET/CT in Metastatic Invasive Lobular Breast Cancer. J Nucl Med. 2020; 62(3):326-331. PMC: 8049349. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.120.247882. View

Dayes I, Metser U, Hodgson N, Parpia S, Eisen A, George R . Impact of F-Labeled Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography Versus Conventional Staging in Patients With Locally Advanced Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2023; 41(23):3909-3916. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.23.00249. View

10.

Biganzoli L, Cardoso F, Beishon M, Cameron D, Cataliotti L, Coles C . The requirements of a specialist breast centre. Breast. 2020; 51:65-84. PMC: 7375681. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2020.02.003. View

11.

Kitajima K, Fukushima K, Miyoshi Y, Nishimukai A, Hirota S, Igarashi Y . Association between ¹⁸F-FDG uptake and molecular subtype of breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015; 42(9):1371-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-015-3070-1. View

12.

Gennari A, Andre F, Barrios C, Cortes J, de Azambuja E, DeMichele A . ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for the diagnosis, staging and treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2021; 32(12):1475-1495. DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.09.019. View

13.

Vogsen M, Harbo F, Jakobsen N, Nissen H, Dahlsgaard-Wallenius S, Gerke O . Response Monitoring in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Prospective Study Comparing F-FDG PET/CT with Conventional CT. J Nucl Med. 2022; 64(3):355-361. PMC: 10071809. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.121.263358. View

14.

Koolen B, Vrancken Peeters M, Aukema T, Vogel W, Oldenburg H, van der Hage J . 18F-FDG PET/CT as a staging procedure in primary stage II and III breast cancer: comparison with conventional imaging techniques. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011; 131(1):117-26. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1767-9. View

15.

Eisenhauer E, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz L, Sargent D, Ford R . New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2008; 45(2):228-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026. View

16.

Pasquier D, Bidaut L, Oprea-Lager D, deSouza N, Krug D, Collette L . Designing clinical trials based on modern imaging and metastasis-directed treatments in patients with oligometastatic breast cancer: a consensus recommendation from the EORTC Imaging and Breast Cancer Groups. Lancet Oncol. 2023; 24(8):e331-e343. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00286-3. View

17.

Te Riet J, Rijnsdorp S, Roef M, Arends A . Evaluation of a Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm for low-count clinical F-FDG PET/CT. EJNMMI Phys. 2020; 6(1):32. PMC: 6937357. DOI: 10.1186/s40658-019-0262-y. View

18.

Vogsen M, Jensen J, Christensen I, Gerke O, Bak Jylling A, Larsen L . FDG-PET/CT in high-risk primary breast cancer-a prospective study of stage migration and clinical impact. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020; 185(1):145-153. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-020-05929-3. View

19.

Moreau N, Rousseau C, Fourcade C, Santini G, Brennan A, Ferrer L . Automatic Segmentation of Metastatic Breast Cancer Lesions on F-FDG PET/CT Longitudinal Acquisitions for Treatment Response Assessment. Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14(1). PMC: 8750371. DOI: 10.3390/cancers14010101. View

20.

Groheux D . Role of Fludeoxyglucose in Breast Cancer: Treatment Response. PET Clin. 2018; 13(3):395-414. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpet.2018.02.003. View