Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Serial 2-[18F] fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) to monitor treatment of bone-dominant metastatic breast cancer predicts time to progression (TTP)

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The response of bone-dominant (BD) breast cancer to therapy is difficult to assess by conventional imaging. Our preliminary studies have shown that quantitative serial 2-[18F] fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) correlates with therapeutic response of BD breast cancer, but the relationship to long-term outcome measures is unknown. Our goal was to evaluate the prognostic power of serial FDG PET in BD breast cancer patients undergoing treatment.

Methods

We reviewed medical records of 405 consecutive breast cancer patients referred for FDG PET. Of these, 28 demonstrated metastatic BD breast cancer, were undergoing treatment, had at least 2 serial PET scans, and had abnormal FDG uptake on the first scan. Standardized uptake value (SUV) for the most conspicuous bone lesion at the initial scan, absolute change in SUV over an interval of 1–17 months, and percent change in SUV were considered as predictors of time-to-progression (TTP) and time to skeletal-related event (t-SRE).

Results

Using proportional hazards regression, smaller percentage decreases in SUV (or increases in SUV) were associated with a shorter TTP (P < 0.006). A patient with no change in SUV was twice as likely to progress compared to a patient with a 42% median decrease in SUV. A higher SUV on the initial FDG PET predicted a shorter t-SRE (hazard ratio = 1.30, P < 0.02).

Conclusions

Changes in serial FDG PET may predict TTP in BD metastatic breast cancer patients. However, larger prospective trials are needed to validate changes in FDG PET as a surrogate endpoint for treatment response.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nielson O, Munro A, Tannock I (1991) Bone metastases: pathophysiology and management policy. J Clin Oncol 9:509–524

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mundy G (1997) Mechanisms of bone metastasis. Cancer 80:1546–1556

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Vanel D, Bittoun J, Tardivon A (1998) MRI of bone metastases. Eur J Radiol 8:1345–1351

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bares R (1998) Skeletal scintigraphy in breast cancer management. J Nucl Med 42:43–8

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. O’Sullivan JM, Cook GJ (2002) A review of the efficacy of bone scanning in prostate and breast cancer. J Nucl Med 46:152–159

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ghanem N, Uhl M, Brink I et al. (2005) Diagnostic value of MRI in comparison to scintigraphy, PET, MS-CT and PET/CT for the detection of metastases of bone. Eur J Radiol 55:41–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hamaoka T, Madewell JE, Podoloff DA et al. (2004) Bone imaging in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:2942–2953

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Schneider J, Divgi C, Scott A (1994) Flare on bone scintography following taxol chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. J Nucl Med 35:1748–1752

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Vogel CL, Schoenfelder J, Shemano I et al. (1995) Worsening bone scan in the evaluation of antitumor response during hormonal therapy of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 13:1123–1128

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Maffioli L, Florimonte L, Pagani L et al. (2004) Current role of bone scan with phosphonates in the follow-up of breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 31(Suppl1):S143–S148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Eubank W, Mankoff D (2005) Evolving role of positron emission tomography in breast cancer imaging. Semin Nucl Med 35:84–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cook GJ, Houston S, Rubens R et al. (1998) Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer by 18FDG PET: differing metabolic activity in osteoblastic and osteolytic lesions. J Clin Oncol 16:3375–3379

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Nakai T, Okuyama C, Kubota T et al. (2005) Pitfalls of FDG-PET for the diagnosis of osteoblastic bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 32:1253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Abe K, Sasaki M, Kuwabara Y et al. (2005) Comparison of 18FDG-PET with 99mTc-HMDP scintography for the detection of bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. Ann Nucl Med 19:573–579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Stafford SE, Gralow JR, Schubert EK et al. (2002) Use of serial FDG PET to measure the response of bone-dominant breast cancer to therapy. Acad Radiol 9:913–921

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sugawara Y, Fisher S, Zasakny K et al. (1998) Preclinical and clinical studies of bone marrow uptake of fluorine-18-fluorodexoyglucose with or without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor during chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 16:173–180

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hamacher K, Coenen H, Stocklin G (1986) Efficient stereospecific synthesis of no-carrier added 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose using aminopolyether supported nucleophilic substitution. J Nucl Med 27:235–238

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Beaulieu S, Kinahan P, Tseng J et al. (2003) SUV varies with time after injection in (18)F-FDG PET of breast cancer: characterization and method to adjust for time differences. J Nucl Med 44:1044–1050

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lewellen B, Lewellen T, Mankoff D et al. (2000) A comparison between standard and segmented attenuation correction. J Nucl Med 41:135P

    Google Scholar 

  20. Singer JD, Willett JB (2003) Applied longitudinal data analysis: modeling change and event occurence. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2.0.1 R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria

  22. Even-Sapir E (2005) Imaging of malignant bone involvement by morphologic, scintigraphic, and hybrid modalities. J Nucl Med 46:1356–1367

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Peterson JJ, Kransdorf MJ, O’Connor MI (2003) Diagnosis of occult bone metastases: positron emission tomography. Clin Orthop Relat Res S120-S128

  24. Cook GJ, Fogelman I (2000) The role of positron emission tomography in the management of bone metastases. Cancer 88:2927–2933

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Cook GJ, Fogelman I (2001) Detection of bone metastases in cancer patients by 18F-fluoride and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Q J Nucl Med 45:47–52

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements, financial disclosures

The authors wish to thank the patients participating in this study, the University of Washington PET Center staff for image acquisition and SUV determination; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Breast Cancer staff, and Tove Thompson for helpful discussions. Grant support from CA72064, CA42045, and Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer M. Specht.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Specht, J.M., Tam, S.L., Kurland, B.F. et al. Serial 2-[18F] fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) to monitor treatment of bone-dominant metastatic breast cancer predicts time to progression (TTP). Breast Cancer Res Treat 105, 87–94 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-006-9435-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-006-9435-1

Keywords

Navigation