Is there an association between immunohistochemical parameters of breast cancer and metabolic parameters obtained with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET / CT?

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of our study to investigate relationship between 18F -fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT (18F-FDG PET/CT) metabolic parameters and immunohistochemical factors in breast carcinomas. Material and method: Patients with breast carcinomas who underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging at our department between May 2018 and November 2019 were included in this study. A total of 146 female patients were included (aged 49.1 ± 13.4years; range, 26-87 years). PET scanning was performed in 3D mode from the skull ceiling to the middle of the thigh. Metabolic parameters such as TLG (Total lesion glycolysis), MTV (Metabolic tumor volume) , SUVmean and SUVmax values were calculated. We obtained the histopathological findings, including the size of invasive cancer, histological type, histological grade, ER and PR status, epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2) and Ki-67 of the primary tumor by reviewing the pathology reports. Result: SUV max and SUVmean of Oestrogen receptor negative group were statistically higher than Oestrogen receptor positive group (p=0.009). SUVmean of progesterone receptor negative group were statistically higher than progesterone receptor positive group (p=0.05). Ki-67 of the Oestrogen receptor negative group and progesterone receptor negative group were statistically higher than Oestrogen receptor and progesterone receptor positive group (p=0.001, 0,001 respectively). Both SUVmax and SUVmean of Ki-67 positive group were statistically higher than Ki-67negative group (p=0.0001). Conclusions: 1-SUV max, SUVmean and Ki-67 of Oestrogen receptor negative group were statistically higher than Oestrogen receptor positive group. 2-SUVmean and Ki-67 of progesterone receptor negative group were statistically higher than progesteron receptor positive group. 3- HER2 positive and/or triple negative breast cancers were not associated with 18F-FDG PET/CT metabolic parameters

Keywords

• breast cancer,Oestrogen receptor,18F-FDG PET/CT

References

1. 1. Singletary, S. E. Rating the risk factors for breast cancer. Annals of Surgery, 2003;237(4), 474–482.
2. 2. Barber, M. D., Jack, W., & Dixon, J. M. Diagnostic delay in breast cancer. British Journal of Surgery, 2004; 91(1), 49–53.
3. 3. Osborne C.K., Yochmowitz M.G., Knight W.A., and McGuire W.L.: The value of estrogen and progesterone receptors in the treatment of breast cancer. Cancer 1980; 46: pp. 2884- 2888
4. 4-Iqbal, N. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) in cancers: Overexpression and therapeutic implications. Molecular Biology International, 2014; 852748(10), 7.
5. 5. Koolen BB, Vrancken Peeters MJ, Wesseling J, et al. Association of primary tumour FDG uptake with clinical, histopathological and molecular characteristics in breast cancer patients scheduled for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1830–8.
6. 6. Flanagan FL, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA. PET in breast cancer. Semin Nucl Med. 1998;28:290–302.
7. 7-Choi BB, KimSH, Kang BJ, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging and FDG PET/CT: predicting the prognoses with apparent diffusion coefficient values and maximum standardized uptake values in patients with invasive ductal carcinoma. World J Surg Oncol. 2012;10:126.
8. 8. Bos R, van Der Hoeven JJ, van Der Wall E, van Der Groep P, van Diest PJ, Comans EF. Biologic correlates of (18)fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in human breast cancer measured by positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:379–87.

9. 9. Ekmekcioglu O, Aliyev A, Yilmaz S, Arslan E, Kaya R, Kocael P. Correlation of 18F fluorodeoxyglucose uptake with histopathological prognostic factors in breast carcinoma. Nucl Med Commun. 2013;34:1055–67.
10. 10. Gil-Rendo A, Martinez-Regueira F, Zornoza G, et al. Association between [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake and prognostic parameters in breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2009;96:166–70.
11. 11. Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Moretti JL, et al. Correlation of high 18F-FDG uptake to clinical, pathological and biological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:426–35.
12. 12. Heudel P, Cimarelli S, Montella A, Bouteille C, Mognetti T. Value of PET-FDG in primary breast cancer based on histopathological and immunohistochemical prognostic factors. Int J Clin Oncol. 2010;15:588–93.
13. 13. Sanli Y, Kuyumcu S, Ozkan ZG, Isik G, Karanlik H, Guzelbey B. Increased FDG uptake in breast cancer is associated with prognostic factors. Ann Nucl Med. 2012;26:345–50.
14. 14. Daisne J.-F., Sibomana M., Bol A., et al: Tri-dimensional automatic segmentation of PET volumes based on measured source-to-background ratios: influence of reconstruction algorithms. Radiother Oncol 2003; 69: pp. 247-250
15. 15-Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0.European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(2):328-354.
16. 16. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2000; 406:747-752.
17. 17-Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS, et al. Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013. Ann Oncol 2013; 24:2206-2223.
18. 18. Park S, Koo JS, Kim MS,et al. Characteristics and outcomes according to molecular subtypes of breast cancer as classified by a panel of four biomarkers using immunohistochemistry. Breast 2012; 21:50-57.
19. 19. De Cicco C, Gilardi L, Botteri E, et al. Is [(18)F] fluorodeoxyglucose uptake by the primary tumor a prognostic factor in breast cancer? Breast2013;22:39-43.
20. 20. Mavi A, Cermik TF, Urhan M, et al. The effects of estrogen, progesterone, and C-erbB-2 receptor states on 18F-FDG uptake of primary breast cancer lesions. J Nucl Med 2007;48:1266-1272.
21. 21. Osborne JR, Port E, Gonen M, et al. 18F-FDG PET of locally invasive breast cancer and association of estrogen receptor status with standardised uptake value: microarray and immunohistochemical analysis. J Nucl Med2010;51:543-550.
22. 22. Buck A, Schirrmeister H, Kuhn T et al. FDG uptake in breast cancer: correlation with biological and clinical prognostic parameters.Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging2002;29:1317- 1323.
23. 23. Utech CI, Young CS, Winter PF. Prospective evaluation of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in breast cancer for staging of the axilla related to surgery and immunocytochemistry.Eur J Nucl Med 1996;23:1588-1593.
24. 24. Brock CS, Meikle SR, Price P. Does fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose metabolic imaging of tumours benefit oncology?Eur J Nucl Med1997;24:691-705.
25. 25. Oshida M, Uno K, Suzuki M, Nagashima T, Hashimoto H, Yagata H, et al. Predicting the prognoses of breast carcinoma patients with positron emission tomography using 2-deoxy2-fluoro[18F]-D-glucose.Cancer1998;82:2227-2234.
26. 26. Avril N, Menzel M, Dose J, et al. Glucose metabolism of breast cancer assessed by 18FFDG PET: histologic and immunohistochemical tissue analysis. J Nucl Med2001;42:9-16.
27. 27. Nishimura R, Osako T, Okumura Y, Hayashi M, Toyozumi Y, Arima N. Ki-67 as a prognostic marker according to breast cancer subtype and a predictor of recurrence time in primary breast cancer. Exp Ther Med 2010;1:747-754.
28. 28. Dehdashti F, Mortimer JE, Siegel BA, Griffeth LK, et al. Positron tomographic assessment of estrogen receptors in breast cancer: comparison with FDG-PET and in vitro receptor assays. J Nucl Med. 1995;36(10):1766–1774.
29. 29. Garcia Vicente AM, Castrejon AS, et al. 18F-FDG retention index and biologic prognostic parameters in breast cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2012;37(5):460–466.
30. 30. Shimoda W, Hayashi M, Murakami K, Oyama T, et al. The relationship between FDG uptake in PET scans and biological behavior in breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2007;14(3):260–268. doi: 10.2325/jbcs.14.260.
31. 31. Azambuja E, Cardoso F, de Castro G Jr, et al. Ki-6 as prognostic marker in early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of published studies involving 12 155 patients.Br J Cancer 2007;96:1504-1513.
32. 32. Yerushalmi R, Woods R, Ravdin PM, Hayes MM, Gelmon KA. Ki67 in breast cancer: prognostic and predictive potential. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:174-183.
33. 33. Urruticoechea A, Smith IE, Dowsett M. Proliferation marker Ki-67 in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7212-7220.
34. 34. Bos R, van Der Hoeven JJ, van Der Wall E, et al. Biologic correlates of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in human breast cancer measured by positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:379-387.
35. 35. Buck A, Schirrmeister H, Kuhn T, et al. FDG uptake in breast cancer: correlation with biological and clinical prognostic parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:1317- 1323.
36. 36-Ito M, Shien T, Kaji M, Mizoo T, et al. Correlation between 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/computed Tomography and Clinicopathological Features in Invasive Ductal Carcinoma of the Breast. Acta Med Okayama 2015; 69:333-338.
37. 37-Ueda S, Tsuda H, Asakawa H, et al. Clinicopathological and prognostic relevance of uptake level using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography fusion imaging (18F-FDG PET/CT) in primary breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2008; 38:250-258.
38. 38. Haffty BG, Yang Q, Reiss M, et al. Locoregional relapse and distant metastasis in conservatively managed triple negative early stage breast cancer.J Clin Oncol2006;24:5652-5657.
39. 39. Basu S, Chen W, Tchou J, et al. Comparison of triple-negative and estrogen receptorpositive/progesterone receptor-positive/HER2-negative breast carcinoma using quantitative fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose/positron emission tomography imaging parameters: a potentially useful method for disease characterization. Cancer2008;112:995-1000.