2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT is a better predictor of survival than conventional CT: a prospective study of response monitoring in metastatic breast cancer.

This study aimed to compare CE-CT and 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT for response monitoring metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The primary objective was to predict progression-free and disease-specific survival for responders vs. non-responders on CE-CT and 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT. The secondary objective was to assess agreement between response categorization for the two modalities. Treatment response in women with MBC was monitored prospectively by simultaneous CE-CT and 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT, allowing participants to serve as their own controls. The standardized response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST 1.1) and PET response criteria in solid tumors (PERCIST) were used for response categorization. For prediction of progression-free and disease-specific survival, treatment response was dichotomized into responders (partial and complete response) and non-responders (stable and progressive disease) at the first follow-up scan. Progression-free survival was defined as the time from baseline until disease progression or death from any cause. Disease-specific survival was defined as the time from baseline until breast cancer-specific death. Agreement between response categorization for both modalities was analyzed for all response categories and responders vs. non-responders. At the first follow-up, tumor response was reported more often by 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT than CE-CT, with only fair agreement on response categorization between the two modalities (weighted Kappa 0.28). Two-year progression-free survival for responders vs. non-responders by CE-CT was 54.2% vs. 46.0%, compared with 59.1% vs. 14.3% by 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT. Correspondingly, 2-year disease-specific survival were 83.3% vs. 77.8% for CE-CT and 84.6% vs. 61.9% for 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT. Tumor response on 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT was significantly associated with progression-free (HR: 3.49, P < 0.001) and disease-specific survival (HR 2.35, P = 0.008), while no association was found for tumor response on CE-CT. In conclusion, 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT appears a better predictor of progression-free and disease-specific survival than CE-CT when used to monitor metastatic breast cancer. In addition, we found low concordance between response categorization between the two modalities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical. TRIALS: gov. NCT03358589. Registered 30/11/2017-Retrospectively registered, http://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Comparison of Image Quality and Quantification Parameters between Q.Clear and OSEM Reconstruction Methods on FDG-PET/CT Images in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer.

We compared the image quality and quantification parameters through bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm (Q.Clear) and ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) algorithm for 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT scans performed for response monitoring in patients with metastatic breast cancer in prospective setting. We included 37 metastatic breast cancer patients diagnosed and monitored with 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT at Odense University Hospital (Denmark). A total of 100 scans were analyzed blinded toward Q.Clear and OSEM reconstruction algorithms regarding image quality parameters (noise, sharpness, contrast, diagnostic confidence, artefacts, and blotchy appearance) using a five-point scale. The hottest lesion was selected in scans with measurable disease, considering the same volume of interest in both reconstruction methods. SULpeak (g/mL) and SUVmax (g/mL) were compared for the same hottest lesion. There was no significant difference regarding noise, diagnostic confidence, and artefacts within reconstruction methods; Q.Clear had significantly better sharpness (p < 0.001) and contrast (p = 0.001) than the OSEM reconstruction, while the OSEM reconstruction had significantly less blotchy appearance compared with Q.Clear reconstruction (p < 0.001). Quantitative analysis on 75/100 scans indicated that Q.Clear reconstruction had significantly higher SULpeak (5.33 ± 2.8 vs. 4.85 ± 2.5, p < 0.001) and SUVmax (8.27 ± 4.8 vs. 6.90 ± 3.8, p < 0.001) compared with OSEM reconstruction. In conclusion, Q.Clear reconstruction revealed better sharpness, better contrast, higher SUVmax, and higher SULpeak, while OSEM reconstruction had less blotchy appearance.