Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Prognostic impact of 18F-FDG PET/CT staging and of pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Mortality is high in patients with locally advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), especially in those with residual tumour after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). The aim of this study was to determine if pretreatment 18F-FDG PET/CT staging and pathological findings after NAC could together allow stratification of patients into prognostic groups.

Methods

Initial staging with 18F-FDG PET/CT was performed prospectively in 85 consecutive patients with stage II/III TNBC. Correlations between PET findings and disease-specific survival (DSS) were examined. In patients without distant metastases on PET staging, the impact of pathological response to NAC on DSS was examined. Patterns of recurrence were also analysed.

Results

18F-DG PET/CT revealed distant metastases in 11 of 85 patients (12.9 %). Among 74 M0 patients, 23 (31.1 %) showed a pathological complete response (pCR) at surgery, while 51 had residual invasive disease (no pCR). DSS differed considerably among the three groups of patients (log-rank P < .001): among patients with occult metastases on baseline PET/CT, 2-year DSS was 18.2 %, and among patients without initial metastases on PET/CT, 5-year DSS was 61.3 % in patients without pCR after NAC and 95.2 % in those with pCR. Of the 51 patients who did not achieve pCR, 21 relapsed (17 developed distant metastases). The sites of distant recurrence were: lung/pleura (nine patients), brain (eight patients), liver (six patients), distant lymph nodes (six patients) and bone (five patients).

Conclusion

In patients with clinical stage II/III TNBC, 18F-FDG PET/CT findings at initial staging and pathological response at the end of NAC allow three groups of patients with quite different prognoses to be defined. Extraskeletal recurrences predominated. Specific follow-up strategies in patients with TNBC who do not achieve pCR deserve investigation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  1. Fuster D, Duch J, Paredes P, Velasco M, Muñoz M, Santamaría G, et al. Preoperative staging of large primary breast cancer with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography compared with conventional imaging procedures. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:4746–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Koolen BB, Vrancken Peeters MJ, Aukema TS, Vogel WV, Oldenburg HS, van der Hage JA, et al. 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. 2012;131:117–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Groheux D, Hindié E, Delord M, Giacchetti S, Hamy AS, de Bazelaire C, et al. Prognostic impact of 18FDG-PET-CT findings in clinical stage III and IIB breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104:1879–87.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cochet A, Dygai-Cochet I, Riedinger JM, Humbert O, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Toubeau M, et al. (18)F-FDG PET/CT provides powerful prognostic stratification in the primary staging of large breast cancer when compared with conventional explorations. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:428–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Foulkes WD, Smith IE, Reis-Filho JS. Triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1938–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lin NU, Vanderplas A, Hughes ME, Theriault RL, Edge SB, Wong YN, et al. Clinicopathologic features, patterns of recurrence, and survival among women with triple-negative breast cancer in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Cancer. 2012;118:5463–72.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L, Gatti L, Moore DT, Collichio F, et al. The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:2329–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Liedtke C, Mazouni C, Hess KR, André F, Tordai A, Mejia JA, et al. Response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1275–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU, Costa SD, Eidtmann H, Fasching PA, et al. Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1796–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, Mehta K, Costantino JP, Wolmark N, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384:164–72. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62422-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Giacchetti S, Porcher R, Lehmann-Che J, Hamy AS, de Roquancourt A, Cuvier C, et al. Long-term survival of advanced triple-negative breast cancers with a dose-intense cyclophosphamide/anthracycline neoadjuvant regimen. Br J Cancer. 2014;110:1413–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Moretti JL, Porcher R, Espié M, Lehmann-Che J, et al. Correlation of high (18)F-FDG uptake to clinical, pathological and biological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:426–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Choi J, Kim DH, Jung WH, Koo JS. Metabolic interaction between cancer cells and stromal cells according to breast cancer molecular subtype. Breast Cancer Res. 2013;15:R78.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Prat A, Adamo B, Cheang MCU, Anders CK, Carey LA, Perou CM. Molecular characterization of basal-like and non-basal-like triple-negative breast cancer. Oncologist. 2013;18:123–33.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Masuda H, Baggerly KA, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Meric-Bernstam F, et al. Differential response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy among 7 triple-negative breast cancer molecular subtypes. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:5533–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nagao T, Kinoshita T, Hojo T, Tsuda H, Tamura K, Fujiwara Y. The differences in the histological types of breast cancer and the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: the relationship between the outcome and the clinicopathological characteristics. Breast. 2012;21:289–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ademuyiwa FO, Ellis MJ, Ma CX. Neoadjuvant therapy in operable breast cancer: application to triple negative breast cancer. J Oncol. 2013;2013:219869.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gerber B, Loibl S, Eidtmann H, Rezai M, Fasching PA, Tesch H, et al. Neoadjuvant bevacizumab and anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy in 678 triple-negative primary breast cancers; results from the geparquinto study (GBG 44). Ann Oncol. 2013;24:2978–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Groheux D, Hindié E, Giacchetti S, Delord M, Hamy AS, de Roquancourt A, et al. 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. 2012;53:249–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Groheux D, Hindié E, Giacchetti S, Hamy AS, Berger F, Merlet P, et al. Early assessment with (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography can help predict the outcome of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple negative breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50:1864–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Evangelista L, Baretta Z, Vinante L, Cervino AR, Gregianin M, Ghiotto C, et al. Tumour markers and FDG PET/CT for prediction of disease relapse in patients with breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:293–301.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Champion L, Brain E, Giraudet A, Le Stanc E, Wartski M, Edeline V, et al. Breast cancer recurrence diagnosis suspected on tumor marker rising: value of whole-body 18FDG-PET/CT imaging and impact on patient management. Cancer. 2011;117:1621–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pan L, Han Y, Sun X, Liu J, Gang H. FDG-PET and other imaging modalities for the evaluation of breast cancer recurrence and metastases: a meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2010;136:1007–22.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pennant M, Takwoingi Y, Pennant L, Davenport C, Fry-Smith A, Eisinga A, et al. A systematic review of positron emission tomography (PET) and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for the diagnosis of breast cancer recurrence. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14:1–103.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Groheux D, Espié M, Giacchetti S, Hindié E. Performance of FDG PET/CT in the clinical management of breast cancer. Radiology. 2013;266:388–405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Financial support

None.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Saint-Louis Hospital, 1 avenue Claude Vellefaux, 75475, Paris Cedex 10, France

    D. Groheux & P. Merlet

  2. Breast Diseases Unit, Department of Medical Oncology, Saint-Louis Hospital, Paris, France

    S. Giacchetti, A. S. Hamy & M. Espié

  3. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Institut Universitaire d’Hématologie, Paris, France

    M. Delord

  4. Department of Pathology, Saint-Louis Hospital, Paris, France

    A. de Roquancourt

  5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Haut-Lévêque Hospital, CHU Bordeaux, University of Bordeaux, CNRS-UMR 5287, Bordeaux, France

    E. Hindié

  6. B2T Doctoral School, Institut Universitaire d’Hématologie, University of Paris VII, Paris, France

    D. Groheux & P. Merlet

Authors
  1. D. Groheux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Giacchetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Delord
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. de Roquancourt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. Merlet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. S. Hamy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. Espié
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. E. Hindié
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Groheux.

Additional information

This work is original and has not been presented elsewhere.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Groheux, D., Giacchetti, S., Delord, M. et al. Prognostic impact of 18F-FDG PET/CT staging and of pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42, 377–385 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2941-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2941-1

Keywords

Profiles

  1. D. Groheux View author profile