Dynamic Whole-body [F]FES PET/CT Increases Lesion Visibility in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer

Overview

Journal EJNMMI Res

Date 2024 Mar 4

PMID 38436824

Authors

Mette A Pedersen

Ole L Munk

Andre H Dias

Johanne H Steffensen

Anders L Moller

Anna Lyhne Johnsson

Kim Vang Hansen

Dirk Bender

Steen Jakobsen

Morten Busk

Lars C Gormsen

Trine Tramm

Signe Borgquist

Mikkel H Vendelbo

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Correct classification of estrogen receptor (ER) status is essential for prognosis and treatment planning in patients with breast cancer (BC). Therefore, it is recommended to sample tumor tissue from an accessible metastasis. However, ER expression can show intra- and intertumoral heterogeneity. 16α-[F]fluoroestradiol ([F]FES) Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) allows noninvasive whole-body (WB) identification of ER distribution and is usually performed as a single static image 60 min after radiotracer injection. Using dynamic whole-body (D-WB) PET imaging, we examine [F]FES kinetics and explore whether Patlak parametric images ( ) are quantitative and improve lesion visibility.

Results: This prospective study included eight patients with metastatic ER-positive BC scanned using a D-WB PET acquisition protocol. The kinetics of [F]FES were best characterized by the irreversible two-tissue compartment model in tumor lesions and in the majority of organ tissues. values from Patlak parametric images correlated with values from the full kinetic analysis, r = 0.77, and with the semiquantitative mean standardized uptake value (SUV), r = 0.91. Furthermore, parametric images had the highest target-to-background ratio (TBR) in 162/164 metastatic lesions and the highest contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in 99/164 lesions compared to conventional SUV images. TBR was 2.45 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.25-2.68) and CNR 1.17 (95% CI: 1.08-1.26) times higher in images compared to SUV images. These quantitative differences were seen as reduced background activity in the images.

Conclusion: [F]FES uptake is best described by an irreversible two-tissue compartment model. D-WB [F]FES PET/CT scans can be used for direct reconstruction of parametric images, with superior lesion visibility and values comparable to values found from full kinetic analyses. This may aid correct ER classification and treatment decisions. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04150731, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04150731.

Citing Articles

Prediction of the axillary lymph-node metastatic burden of breast cancer by F-FDG PET/CT-based radiomics.

Li Y, Han D, Shen C BMC Cancer. 2024; 24(1):704.

PMID: 38849770 PMC: 11161959. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12476-3.

References

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

Oh S, Chi D, Mosdzianowski C, Kil H, Ryu J, Moon D . The automatic production of 16alpha-[18F]fluoroestradiol using a conventional [18F]FDG module with a disposable cassette system. Appl Radiat Isot. 2006; 65(6):676-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2006.06.016. View

Dias A, Pedersen M, Danielsen H, Munk O, Gormsen L . Clinical feasibility and impact of fully automated multiparametric PET imaging using direct Patlak reconstruction: evaluation of 103 dynamic whole-body F-FDG PET/CT scans. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020; 48(3):837-850. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-020-05007-2. View

Wasserthal J, Breit H, Meyer M, Pradella M, Hinck D, Sauter A . TotalSegmentator: Robust Segmentation of 104 Anatomic Structures in CT Images. Radiol Artif Intell. 2023; 5(5):e230024. PMC: 10546353. DOI: 10.1148/ryai.230024. View

Jackson S, Frederick P, Pepe M, Nelson H, Weaver D, Allison K . Diagnostic Reproducibility: What Happens When the Same Pathologist Interprets the Same Breast Biopsy Specimen at Two Points in Time?. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016; 24(5):1234-1241. PMC: 5538724. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-016-5695-0. View

Schrijver W, Suijkerbuijk K, van Gils C, van der Wall E, Moelans C, van Diest P . Receptor Conversion in Distant Breast Cancer Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018; 110(6):568-580. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djx273. View

Kurland B, Peterson L, Lee J, Linden H, Schubert E, Dunnwald L . Between-patient and within-patient (site-to-site) variability in estrogen receptor binding, measured in vivo by 18F-fluoroestradiol PET. J Nucl Med. 2011; 52(10):1541-9. PMC: 3443079. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.111.091439. View

Sari E, Guler G, Hayran M, Gullu I, Altundag K, Ozisik Y . Comparative study of the immunohistochemical detection of hormone receptor status and HER-2 expression in primary and paired recurrent/metastatic lesions of patients with breast cancer. Med Oncol. 2010; 28(1):57-63. DOI: 10.1007/s12032-010-9418-2. View

Ciocca D, Roig L . Estrogen receptors in human nontarget tissues: biological and clinical implications. Endocr Rev. 1995; 16(1):35-62. DOI: 10.1210/edrv-16-1-35. View

10.

PATLAK C, Blasberg R, Fenstermacher J . Graphical evaluation of blood-to-brain transfer constants from multiple-time uptake data. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1983; 3(1):1-7. DOI: 10.1038/jcbfm.1983.1. View

11.

Bjorke H, Andersson K . Automated, high-resolution cellular retention and uptake studies in vitro. Appl Radiat Isot. 2006; 64(8):901-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2006.03.002. View

12.

Lindstrom L, Karlsson E, Wilking U, Johansson U, Hartman J, Lidbrink E . Clinically used breast cancer markers such as estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 are unstable throughout tumor progression. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30(21):2601-8. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.37.2482. View

13.

OBrien S, Edmonds C, Lanzo S, Weeks J, Mankoff D, Pantel A . F-Fluoroestradiol: Current Applications and Future Directions. Radiographics. 2023; 43(3):e220143. DOI: 10.1148/rg.220143. View

14.

Sahin E, Elboga U, Celen Y, Sever O, Cayirli Y, Cimen U . Comparison of Ga-DOTA-FAPI and FDG PET/CT imaging modalities in the detection of liver metastases in patients with gastrointestinal system cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2021; 142:109867. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109867. View

15.

Peterson L, Kurland B, Link J, Schubert E, Stekhova S, Linden H . Factors influencing the uptake of 18F-fluoroestradiol in patients with estrogen receptor positive breast cancer. Nucl Med Biol. 2011; 38(7):969-78. PMC: 4108284. DOI: 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2011.03.002. View

16.

Iqbal R, Yaqub M, Oprea-Lager D, Liu Y, Luik A, Beelen A . Biodistribution of F-FES in Patients with Metastatic ER+ Breast Cancer Undergoing Treatment with Rintodestrant (G1T48), a Novel Selective ER Degrader. J Nucl Med. 2021; 63(5):694-699. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.121.262500. View

17.

Iqbal R, Menke-van der Houven van Oordt C, Oprea-Lager D, Booij J . [F]FES uptake in the pituitary gland and white matter of the brain. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021; 48(9):3009-3010. PMC: 8263391. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-021-05281-8. View

18.

Tewson T, Mankoff D, Peterson L, Woo I, Petra P . Interactions of 16alpha-[18F]-fluoroestradiol (FES) with sex steroid binding protein (SBP). Nucl Med Biol. 2000; 26(8):905-13. DOI: 10.1016/s0969-8051(99)00072-4. View

19.

Allison K, Hammond M, Dowsett M, McKernin S, Carey L, Fitzgibbons P . Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Testing in Breast Cancer: ASCO/CAP Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2020; 38(12):1346-1366. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.19.02309. View

20.

Siegel R, Miller K, Fuchs H, Jemal A . Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022; 72(1):7-33. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21708. View