Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Correlation between 18F-FDG uptake on PET/CT and prognostic factors in triple-negative breast cancer

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether a correlation exists between 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake and prognostic factors in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Methods

Between January 2009 and December 2013, 103 patients (mean age, 50.6 years) with primary TNBC (mean, 2.6 cm; range, 1.0–6.5 cm) underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT for initial staging. Correlations between maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) on PET/CT and prognostic factors including tumour size, nodal status, histological grade, Ki-67 proliferation index, tumour suppressor p53, and ‘basal-like’ markers (epidermal growth factor receptor and CK 5/6) were assessed.

Results

The mean SUVmax of the 103 tumours was 10.94 ± 5.25 (range: 2–32.8). There was a positive correlation between SUVmax and Ki-67 (Spearman’s rho = 0.29, P = 0.003) and tumour size (Spearman’s rho = 0.27, P = 0.006), whereas this relationship was not observed in the nodal status, histological grade, p53 status and ‘basal-like’ phenotypes. In a multivariate regression analysis, Ki-67 (P < 0.001) and tumour size (P = 0.009) were significantly associated with SUVmax in TNBCs.

Conclusions

Increased 18F-FDG uptake on PET/CT was correlated with a high Ki-67 proliferation index and larger tumour size in TNBC. These results suggest a potential role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in identifying TNBC with more aggressive behaviour.

Key points

• A wide range of FDG uptake reflected heterogeneity of cancer metabolism.

• FDG uptake was correlated with the Ki-67 proliferation index in TNBC.

• FDG uptake was correlated with tumour size in TNBC.

• FDG uptake was not correlated with ‘basal-like’ phenotype.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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. Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, Parise CA, Caggiano V (2007) Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-negative invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: a population-based study from the California cancer Registry. Cancer 109:1721–1728

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI et al (2007) Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res 13:4429–4434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hudis CA, Gianni L (2011) Triple-negative breast cancer: an unmet medical need. Oncologist 16:1–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lehmann BD, Pietenpol JA (2014) Identification and use of biomarkers in treatment strategies for triple-negative breast cancer subtypes. J Pathol 232:142–150

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Green AR, Lee AH, Robertson JF, Ellis IO (2007) Prognostic markers in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer 109:25–32

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Prat A, Adamo B, Cheang MC, Anders CK, Carey LA, Perou CM (2013) Molecular characterization of basal-like and non-basal-like triple-negative breast cancer. Oncologist 18:123–133

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Koolen BB, Vrancken Peeters MJ, Aukema TS et al (2012) 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 131:117–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Aukema TS, Rutgers EJ, Vogel WV et al (2010) The role of FDG PET/CT in patients with locoregional breast cancer recurrence: a comparison to conventional imaging techniques. Eur J Surg Oncol 36:387–392

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hatt M, Groheux D, Martineau A et al (2013) Comparison between 18F-FDG PET image-derived indices for early prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Nucl Med 54:341–349

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Moretti JL et al (2011) Correlation of high 18F-FDG uptake to clinical, pathological and biological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38:426–435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Basu S, Chen W, Tchou J et al (2008) Comparison of triple-negative and estrogen receptor-positive/progesterone receptor-positive/HER2-negative breast carcinoma using quantitative fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose/positron emission tomography imaging parameters: a potentially useful method for disease characterization. Cancer 112:995–1000

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tchou J, Sonnad SS, Bergey MR et al (2010) Degree of tumor FDG uptake correlates with proliferation index in triple negative breast cancer. Mol Imaging Biol 12:657–662

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Koo HR, Park JS, Kang KW et al (2014) 18F-FDG uptake in breast cancer correlates with immunohistochemically defined subtypes. Eur Radiol 24:610–618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Groheux D, Hindie E, Giacchetti S et al (2012) Triple-negative breast cancer: early assessment with 18F-FDG PET/CT during neoadjuvant chemotherapy identifies patients who are unlikely to achieve a pathologic complete response and are at a high risk of early relapse. J Nucl Med 53:249–254

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ohara M, Shigematsu H, Tsutani Y et al (2013) Role of FDG-PET/CT in evaluating surgical outcomes of operable breast cancer: usefulness for malignant grade of triple-negative breast cancer. Breast 22:958–963

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mountz JM, Yankeelov TE, Rubin DL et al (2014) Letter to cancer center directors: progress in quantitative imaging as a means to predict and/or measure tumor response in cancer therapy trials. J Clin Oncol 32:2115–2116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mankoff DA, Pryma DA, Clark AS (2014) Molecular imaging biomarkers for oncology clinical trials. J Nucl Med 55:525–528

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M et al (2010) American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 28:2784–2795

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN et al (2007) American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:118–145

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zabaglo L, Salter J, Anderson H et al (2010) Comparative validation of the SP6 antibody to Ki67 in breast cancer. J Clin Pathol 63:800–804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zellars RC, Hilsenbeck SG, Clark GM et al (2000) Prognostic value of p53 for local failure in mastectomy-treated breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 18:1906–1913

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K et al (2004) Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 10:5367–5374

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cheang MC, Voduc D, Bajdik C et al (2008) Basal-like breast cancer defined by five biomarkers has superior prognostic value than triple-negative phenotype. Clin Cancer Res 14:1368–1376

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gerdes J, Li L, Schlueter C et al (1991) Immunobiochemical and molecular biologic characterization of the cell proliferation-associated nuclear antigen that is defined by monoclonal antibody Ki-67. Am J Pathol 138:867–873

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Inwald EC, Klinkhammer-Schalke M, Hofstadter F et al (2013) Ki-67 is a prognostic parameter in breast cancer patients: results of a large population-based cohort of a cancer registry. Breast Cancer Res Treat 139:539–552

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ (2011) Strategies for subtypes: dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol 22:1736–1747

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Keam B, Im SA, Lee KH et al (2011) Ki-67 can be used for further classification of triple negative breast cancer into two subtypes with different response and prognosis. Breast Cancer Res 13:R22

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhang G, Xie W, Liu Z et al (2014) Prognostic function of Ki-67 for pathological complete response rate of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer. Tumori 100:136–142

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Urruticoechea A, Smith IE, Dowsett M (2005) Proliferation marker Ki-67 in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:7212–7220

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Polley MY, Leung SC, McShane LM et al (2013) An international Ki67 reproducibility study. J Natl Cancer Inst 105:1897–1906

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lehmann BD, Bauer JA, Chen X et al (2011) Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and preclinical models for selection of targeted therapies. J Clin Investig 121:2750–2767

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kim S, Kim do H, Jung WH, Koo JS (2013) Metabolic phenotypes in triple-negative breast cancer. Tumour Biol 34:1699–1712

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Uematsu T, Kasami M, Yuen S (2009) Comparison of FDG PET and MRI for evaluating the tumor extent of breast cancer and the impact of FDG PET on the systemic staging and prognosis of patients who are candidates for breast-conserving therapy. Breast Cancer 16:97–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kim JY, Lee SH, Kim S, Kang T, Bae YT (2015) Tumour 18F-FDG Uptake on preoperative PET/CT may predict axillary lymph node metastasis in ER-positive/HER2-negative and HER2-positive breast cancer subtypes. Eur Radiol 25:1172–1181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Gil-Rendo A, Martinez-Regueira F, Zornoza G, Garcia-Velloso MJ, Beorlegui C, Rodriguez-Spiteri N (2009) Association between [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake and prognostic parameters in breast cancer. Br J Surg 96:166–170

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Buck A, Schirrmeister H, Kuhn T et al (2002) FDG uptake in breast cancer: correlation with biological and clinical prognostic parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 29:1317–1323

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Silwal-Pandit L, Vollan HK, Chin SF et al (2014) TP53 mutation spectrum in breast cancer is subtype specific and has distinct prognostic relevance. Clin Cancer Res 20:3569–3580

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Soussan M, Orlhac F, Boubaya M et al (2014) Relationship between tumor heterogeneity measured on FDG-PET/CT and pathological prognostic factors in invasive breast cancer. PLoS One 9:e94017

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Woo Kyung Moon. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP) (No. 2012R1A2A1A01010846). No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board. Methodology: retrospective, observational, performed at one institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 28 Yongon-dong, Chongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Korea

    Hye Ryoung Koo & Woo Kyung Moon

  2. Department of Radiology, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

    Hye Ryoung Koo & Jeong Seon Park

  3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

    Keon Wook Kang

  4. Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

    Wonshik Han

  5. Department of Pathology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

    In Ae Park

Authors
  1. Hye Ryoung Koo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeong Seon Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Keon Wook Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wonshik Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. In Ae Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Woo Kyung Moon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Woo Kyung Moon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koo, H.R., Park, J.S., Kang, K.W. et al. Correlation between 18F-FDG uptake on PET/CT and prognostic factors in triple-negative breast cancer. Eur Radiol 25, 3314–3321 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3734-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3734-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation