Analyzing the Estrogen Receptor Status of Liver Metastases with [18F]-FES-PET in Patients with Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography (PET) with 16α-[18F]-fluoro-17ß-estradiol ([18F]-FES) can visualize estrogen receptor (ER) expression, but it is challenging to determine the ER status of liver metastases, due to high physiological [18F]-FES uptake. We evaluated whether [18F]-FES-PET can be used to determine the ER status of liver metastases, using corresponding liver biopsies as the gold standard. METHODS: Patients with metastatic breast cancer (n = 23) were included if they had undergone a [18F]-FES-PET, liver metastasis biopsy, CT-scan, and [18F]-FDG-PET. [18F]-FES-PET scans were assessed by visual and quantitative analysis, tracer uptake was correlated with ER expression measured by immunohistochemical staining and the effects of region-of-interest size and background correction were determined. RESULTS: Visual analysis allowed ER assessment of liver metastases with 100% specificity and 18% sensitivity. Quantitative analysis improved the sensitivity. Reduction of the region-of-interest size did not further improve the results, but background correction improved ER assessment, resulting in 83% specificity and 77% sensitivity. Using separate thresholds for ER+ and ER- metastases, positive and negative predictive values of 100% and 75%, respectively, could be obtained, although 30% of metastases remained inconclusive. CONCLUSION: In the majority of liver metastases, ER status can be determined with [18F]-FES-PET if background correction and separate thresholds are applied.

Value of 18F-FES PET in Solving Clinical Dilemmas in Breast Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Study.

Breast cancer (BC) is a heterogeneous disease in which estrogen receptor (ER) expression plays an important role in most tumors. A clinical dilemma may arise when a metastasis biopsy to determine the ER status cannot be performed safely or when ER heterogeneity is suspected between tumor lesions. Whole-body ER imaging, such as 16α-18F-fluoro-17ß-estradiol (18F-FES) PET, may have added value in these situations. However, the role of this imaging technique in routine clinical practice remains to be further determined. Therefore, we assessed whether the physician's remaining clinical dilemma after the standard workup was solved by the 18F-FES PET scan. Methods: This retrospective study included 18F-FES PET scans of patients who had (or were suspected to have) ER-positive metastatic BC and for whom a clinical dilemma remained after the standard workup. The scans were performed at the University Medical Center of Groningen between November 2009 and January 2019. We investigated whether the physician's clinical dilemma was solved, defined either as solving the clinical dilemma through the 18F-FES PET results or as basing a treatment decision directly on the 18F-FES PET results. In addition, the category of the clinical dilemma was reported, as well as the rate of 18F-FES-positive or -negative PET scans, and any correlation to the frequency of solved dilemmas was determined. Results: One hundred 18F-FES PET scans were performed on 83 patients. The clinical dilemma categories were inability to determine the extent of metastatic disease or suspected metastatic disease with the standard workup (n = 52), unclear ER status of the tumor (n = 31), and inability to determine which primary tumor caused the metastases (n = 17). The dilemmas were solved by 18F-FES PET in 87 of 100 scans (87%). In 81 of 87 scans, a treatment decision was based directly on 18F-FES PET results (treatment change, 51 scans; continuance, 30 scans). The frequency of solved dilemmas was not related to the clinical dilemma category (P = 0.334). However, the frequency of solved dilemmas was related to whether scans were 18F-FES-positive (n = 63) or 18F-FES-negative (n = 37; P < 0.001). Conclusion: For various indications, the 18F-FES PET scan can help to solve most clinical dilemmas that may remain after the standard workup. Therefore, the 18F-FES PET scan has added value in BC patients who present the physician with a clinical dilemma.

The value of prebiopsy FDG-PET/CT in discriminating malignant from benign vertebral bone lesions in a predominantly oncologic population.

PURPOSE: To determine the value of prebiopsy 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET)/computed tomography (CT) in discriminating malignant from benign vertebral bone lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 53 patients with 55 vertebral bone lesions that underwent FDG-PET/CT before CT-guided biopsy. Pathologic examination of the biopsy sample and a minimum follow-up of 1 year were used as reference standard. RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of visual FDG-PET analysis (with lesion FDG uptake higher than liver FDG uptake as threshold for malignancy) in discriminating malignant from benign vertebral bone lesions were 91.3% (42/46), 22.2% (2/9), 85.7% (42/49), and 33.3% (2/6), respectively. The semiquantitative FDG-PET metrics SUVmax and SUVpeak achieved areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.630 and 0.671, respectively. Malignant lesions demonstrated bone lysis more frequently than benign lesions (60.9% (28/46) vs. 22.2% (2/9)), and this difference was nearly significant (P = 0.064). All other clinical and conventional imaging characteristics (including patient age, gender, previous diagnosis of malignancy, bone pain, weight loss, any CT abnormality, sclerosis, cortical destruction, bone marrow replacement, associated extraosseous soft tissue mass, and accompanying vertebral height loss, multiple bone lesions on FDG-PET/CT, and suspicious extraosseous lesions on FDG-PET/CT) were not significantly different (P = 0.143 to 1.000). CONCLUSION: FDG-PET/CT may steer the diagnosis (particularly thanks to a relatively high PPV and value of semiquantitative measurements), but cannot always classify vertebral bone lesions as malignant or benign with sufficient certainty. In these cases, biopsy and/or follow-up remain necessary to establish a final diagnosis.

The diagnostic significance of repeat ultrasound-guided biopsy of musculoskeletal soft-tissue lesions with initially inconclusive biopsy results.

INTRODUCTION: To determine the diagnostic yield of repeat ultrasound (US)-guided biopsy of musculoskeletal soft-tissue lesions with initially inconclusive biopsy results, and to explore predictive factors for success of repeat biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 42 patients who underwent a repeat (second) US-guided biopsy session to target a musculoskeletal soft-tissue lesion because an initial US-guided biopsy session provided inconclusive results. Both biopsy sessions were performed in a tertiary referral center for soft-tissue sarcomas. RESULTS: The diagnostic yield of repeat US-guided biopsy was 47.6%. Malignant nature of the lesion (P = 0.031), sharp lesion borders on US (P = 0.011), and good to very good lesion visibility on US (P = 0.017) were significantly associated with a diagnostic repeat US-guided biopsy. There was also a trend towards significance (P = 0.073) for a higher number of biopsy passes through the lesion. Other patient characteristics (age and gender), magnetic resonance imaging features (lesion homogeneity on T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and gadolinium chelate enhanced sequences, borders, enhancement pattern, depth and size), US features (lesion appearance, vascular flow, and depth), biopsy-related factors (days between initial and repeat US-guided biopsy, needle diameter, maximum length of acquired samples), and operator-related factors (same or different radiologists/pathologists for initial and repeat biopsies), were not associated with the diagnostic success of the repeat US-guided biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat US-guided biopsy of a musculoskeletal soft-tissue lesion with initially inconclusive biopsy results can be useful to establish a final diagnosis. Lesion features on US (borders and visibility) may be used to prospectively determine the utility of a repeat US-guided biopsy.