Response monitoring in metastatic breast cancer: a comparison of survival times between FDG-PET/CT and CE-CT.

BACKGROUND: We compared overall survival for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients monitored with CE-CT, FDG-PET/CT or a combination of them in an observational setting. METHODS: Patients with biopsy-verified (recurrent or de novo) MBC (n = 300) who were treated at Odense university hospital (Denmark) and response monitored with FDG-PET/CT (n = 83), CE-CT (n = 144), or a combination of these (n = 73) were followed until 2019. Survival was compared between the scan groups, and were adjusted for clinico-histopathological variables representing potential confounders in a Cox proportional-hazard regression model. RESULTS: The study groups were mostly comparable regarding baseline characteristics, but liver metastases were reported more frequently in CE-CT group (38.9%) than in FDG-PET/CT group (19.3%) and combined group (24.7%). Median survival was 30.0 months for CE-CT group, 44.3 months for FDG-PET/CT group and 54.0 months for Combined group. Five-year survival rates were significantly higher for FDG-PET/CT group (41.9%) and combined group (43.3%), than for CE-CT group (15.8%). Using the CE-CT group as reference, the hazard ratio was 0.44 (95% CI: 0.29-0.68, P = 0.001) for the FDG-PET/CT group after adjusting for baseline characteristics. FDG-PET/CT detected the first progression 4.7 months earlier than CE-CT, leading to earlier treatment change. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center, observational study, patients with metastatic breast cancer who were response monitored with FDG-PET/CT alone or in combination with CE-CT had longer overall survival than patients monitored with CE-CT alone. Confirmation of these findings by further, preferably randomised clinical trials is warranted.

Clinical Impact of FDG-PET/CT Compared with CE-CT in Response Monitoring of Metastatic Breast Cancer.

We compared response categories and impacts on treatment decisions for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients that are response-monitored with contrast-enhanced computed-tomography (CE-CT) or fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT). A comparative diagnostic study was performed on MBC patients undergoing response monitoring by CE-CT (n = 34) or FDG-PET/CT (n = 31) at the Odense University Hospital (Denmark). The responses were assessed visually and allocated into categories of complete response (CR/CMR), partial response (PR/PMR), stable disease (SD/SMD), and progressive disease (PD/PMD). Response categories, clinical impact, and positive predictive values (PPV) were compared for follow-up scans. A total of 286 CE-CT and 189 FDG-PET/CT response monitoring scans were performed. Response categories were distributed into CR (3.8%), PR (8.4%), SD (70.6%), PD (15%), and others (2.1%) by CE-CT and into CMR (22.2%), PMR (23.8%), SMD (31.2%), PMD (18.5%), and others (4.4%) by FDG-PET/CT, revealing a significant difference between the groups (P < 0.001). PD and PMD caused changes of treatment in 79.1% and 60%, respectively (P = 0.083). PPV for CE-CT and FDG-PET/CT was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.72-0.97) and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.53-0.87), respectively (P = 0.17). FDG-PET/CT indicated regression of disease more frequently than CE-CT, while CE-CT indicated stable disease more often. FDG-PET/CT seems to be more sensitive than CE-CT for monitoring response in metastatic breast cancer.

FDG-PET/CT for Response Monitoring in Metastatic Breast Cancer: The Feasibility and Benefits of Applying PERCIST.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine the feasibility and potential benefit of applying PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) for response monitoring in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Further, we introduced the nadir scan as a reference. METHODS: Response monitoring FDG-PET/CT scans in 37 women with MBC were retrospectively screened for PERCIST standardization and measurability criteria. One-lesion PERCIST based on changes in SULpeak measurements of the hottest metastatic lesion was used for response categorization. The baseline (PERCISTbaseline) and the nadir scan (PERCISTnadir) were used as references for PERCIST analyses. RESULTS: Metastatic lesions were measurable according to PERCIST in 35 of 37 (94.7%) patients. PERCIST was applied in 150 follow-up scans, with progression more frequently reported by PERCISTnadir (36%) than PERCISTbaseline (29.3%; p = 0.020). Reasons for progression were (a) more than 30% increase in SULpeak of the hottest lesion (n = 7, 15.9%), (b) detection of new metastatic lesions (n = 28, 63.6%), or both (a) and (b) (n = 9, 20.5%). CONCLUSIONS: PERCIST, with the introduction of PERCISTnadir, allows a graphical interpretation of disease fluctuation that may be beneficial in clinical decision-making regarding potential earlier termination of non-effective toxic treatment. PERCIST seems feasible for response monitoring in MBC but prospective studies are needed to come this closer.