Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Meeting ReportOncology, Basic Science Track

Use of paired FDG and 18F-Fluoride PET to predict response to therapy in patients with bone dominant metastases from breast cancer

Lanell Peterson, Alena Novakova, Janet O'Sullivan, Finbarr O'Sullivan, Andrew Shields, Susan Montgomery, Hannah Linden, Julie Gralow, Georgianna Ellis, VK Gadi, William Barlow, Robert Doot, Erin Schubert, Lisa Dunnwald, Lawrence MacDonald, Paul Kinahan, David Mankoff and Jennifer Specht
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2016, 57 (supplement 2) 415;
Lanell Peterson
2Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Seattle WA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alena Novakova
2Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Seattle WA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Janet O'Sullivan
4University College Cork Cork Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Finbarr O'Sullivan
4University College Cork Cork Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew Shields
7University of Washington Seattle WA United States
8University of Washington Seattle WA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susan Montgomery
3Swedish Medical Center Seattle WA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hannah Linden
2Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Seattle WA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Julie Gralow
2Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Seattle WA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Georgianna Ellis
2Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Seattle WA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
VK Gadi
2Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Seattle WA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William Barlow
1Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center Seattle WA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert Doot
6University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia PA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Erin Schubert
6University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia PA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lisa Dunnwald
5University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Iowa City IA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lawrence MacDonald
7University of Washington Seattle WA United States
8University of Washington Seattle WA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul Kinahan
7University of Washington Seattle WA United States
8University of Washington Seattle WA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David Mankoff
6University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia PA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jennifer Specht
2Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Seattle WA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

415

Objectives Bony lesions are common sites of breast cancer metastasis, but they can be difficult to assess for response to therapy with conventional imaging (CT and bone scan). Previous studies have shown that 18F-fluoride PET improves bone metastasis detection compared to bone scans and FDG-PET was predictive of time-to-progression (TTP) and risk of skeletal related events (SRE) in a retrospective setting. We prospectively evaluated the combination of 18F-fluoride PET and FDG-PET to assess response to therapy in patients starting a new therapy for bone dominant metastatic breast cancer.

Methods Patients with metastatic bone lesions were imaged with paired 18F-fluoride PET and FDG-PET studies prior to starting new therapy (baseline) and again at approximately 4 months after start of therapy. 18F-fluoride and FDG static images from skull base to mid-thighs were analyzed quantitatively using the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of up to 5 lesions with the most prominent 18F-fluoride lesion used in the statistical analysis. Tumor locations were confirmed by CT and regions-of-interest (ROIs) were drawn on both 18F-fluoride and FDG images. SUVs on the 18F-fluoride lesions were corrected with the mean uptake in representative normal bone. Choice of systemic therapy was at the discretion of the treating physician. The clinical endpoints (TTP and time to SRE) were determined by clinical follow-up data exclusive of the PET images.

Results 26 patients (mean age 56, range 33-91) completed all four PET scans. The majority (65%) had primary ductal cancers. The mean time from initial breast cancer diagnosis to discovery of bone metastases was 79 months (range 0-440). The average time between the first 18F-fluoride and FDG-PET scans was 10 days (range 1-32) and between the second set of scans was 22 days (range 1-75). The average time between sets of scans was 123 days (range 62-244) for 18F-fluoride and 128 days (range 48-217) for FDG. With a median of 37 months follow-up, 23/26 patients died from their disease (88%) (median overall survival (OS) was 1130 days (range 185-3892); 24/26 (92%) patients had documented disease progression (median TTP 186 days (range 77-3892); and 16/26 (62%) had an SRE (median time to SRE 981 days (range 0-2632). In univariate analysis, neither initial nor change in 18F-fluoride or FDG were prognostic for TTP, SRE or OS. In multivariable analysis, after adjusting for presence of an elevated tumor marker and baseline FDGmax, percent change in FDG SUVmax was associated with OS. Specifically, a 34% percentage reduction in FDGmax uptake at the second scan was associated with a 40% reduction in the risk of death. In a similar way, an increase of 6.3 units in baseline FDG SUV was associated with more than a doubling of risk of death (p=.05 percent change and .005 baseline SUVmax). In TTP and SRE this model had similar results- percentage change in FDGmax from baseline and FDGmax were significantly associated with the endpoints (TTP p=.004,.03, respectively; SRE p=.0005,.0004: (Age was included in the SRE model)). The percentage change in 18F-fluoride or 18F-fluoride SUVmax at baseline did not add any prognostic information to this model.

Conclusions Changes in FDG SUV over the course of treatment were a robust predictor of TTP, SRE and OS, while changes in 18F-fluoride PET did not predict response. These results indicate a role for FDG-PET, in assessing bone dominant breast cancer response to therapy and support a role for PET in future clinical trials. Funding support 5R01CA124573-05, Komen SAC130060, SFI 11/PI/1027

Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 57, Issue supplement 2
May 1, 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Use of paired FDG and 18F-Fluoride PET to predict response to therapy in patients with bone dominant metastases from breast cancer
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Use of paired FDG and 18F-Fluoride PET to predict response to therapy in patients with bone dominant metastases from breast cancer
Lanell Peterson, Alena Novakova, Janet O'Sullivan, Finbarr O'Sullivan, Andrew Shields, Susan Montgomery, Hannah Linden, Julie Gralow, Georgianna Ellis, VK Gadi, William Barlow, Robert Doot, Erin Schubert, Lisa Dunnwald, Lawrence MacDonald, Paul Kinahan, David Mankoff, Jennifer Specht
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2016, 57 (supplement 2) 415;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Use of paired FDG and 18F-Fluoride PET to predict response to therapy in patients with bone dominant metastases from breast cancer
Lanell Peterson, Alena Novakova, Janet O'Sullivan, Finbarr O'Sullivan, Andrew Shields, Susan Montgomery, Hannah Linden, Julie Gralow, Georgianna Ellis, VK Gadi, William Barlow, Robert Doot, Erin Schubert, Lisa Dunnwald, Lawrence MacDonald, Paul Kinahan, David Mankoff, Jennifer Specht
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2016, 57 (supplement 2) 415;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Oncology, Basic Science Track

  • Imaging adult glioma with 68Ga-citrate PET/MR
  • Evaluation of L-1-[18F]Fluoroethyl-Tryptophan for PET Imaging of Cancer
  • Pretargeted radioimmunotherapy with 225Ac-proteus-DOTA hapten.
Show more Oncology, Basic Science Track

Imaging Tumor Response to Therapy

  • In vitro and in vivo imaging of irradiation induced changes in PARP1 expression in oral cancer cell lines
  • Non-invasive monitoring of lymphocyte response to glucocorticoid-induced TNF receptor-related protein agonism with an anti-CD3ε PET probe
Show more Imaging Tumor Response to Therapy

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire