TY - JOUR T1 - Comparing quantitative parameters for diagnostic evaluation of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in early breast cancer JF - Journal of Nuclear Medicine JO - J Nucl Med SP - 2066 LP - 2066 VL - 52 IS - supplement 1 AU - Giuseppina Amalia Di Dia AU - Marta Cremonesi AU - Francesca Botta AU - Concetta De Cicco AU - Laura Gilardi AU - Edoardo Botteri AU - Silvia Fracassi AU - Gennaro Prisco AU - Giovanni Paganelli Y1 - 2011/05/01 UR - http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/52/supplement_1/2066.abstract N2 - 2066 Objectives 18F-FDG uptake has been considered as possible prognostic factor predictor of tumour biological aggressiveness in cancer patients. Our aim was to investigate in early breast cancer submitted to FDG-PET whether the choice of a quantitative parameter among those used in the literature might essentially influence definitive evaluations. Methods We studied 203 patients with breast cancer cT1-T2-N0 undergoing 18F-FDG PET/CT before surgery. Median(range) patients’ weight and height were 60(42-98)kg and 164(145-184)cm, respectively. Measurement of uptake level was done on the primary breast tumour, selecting the slice with the highest uptake value. Regions-Of-Interest(ROIs) were drawn around tumor, recording the maximal Standardized-Uptake-Value(SUVmax) normalised to body weight and Standardized-Uptake-Lean-body-Mass(SULmax). Moreover, following the PERCIST (PET-Response-Criteria-in-Solid-Tumours) criteria, the average SUL(SULav) value in circular ROI(d=12mm) centred over the SULmax pixel was recorded. Results Thirty-two primary tumors(16%) showed no detectable 18F-FDG uptake. In the remaining 171 women the median(range) quantitative parameters were: 4.7(1.5-35.8), SUVmax; 3.4(1.1-25), SULmax; 2.0(0.6-19), SULav. A significant linear correlation was found among these parameters, slightly lower between SUVmax and SULav. Interpolation(m) and correlation(r2) parameters were: m=0.69,r2=0.97 for SUVmax vs. SULmax; m=0.66,r2=0.93 for SULmax vs. SULav; m=0.46,r2=0.91 for SUVmax vs. SULav. Conclusions Results obtained using SUVmax,SULmax,SULav were very similar, indicating SUVmax an acceptable choice for this patient category. The use of more strict criteria such as PERCIST seems not necessary for the particular disease. Conversely, more pronounced influence might be expected in case of more complex clinical scenario of tumour extension, heterogeneity, localization, in which further investigations are needed ER -