[18F]FDG PET/CT volumetric biomarkers for non-invasive prediction of HER2 expression in breast cancer patients

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Nuclear Medicine Unit, National Cancer Institute (NCI), Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

2 Clinical oncology and nuclear medicine department, Zagazig University, Zagazig Egypt

3 Radiology department , Kasr Al Aini medical school, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

4 Pathology department, National Cancer Institute (NCI), Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

5 Surgical Oncology department, Ismailia teaching oncology hospital, Ismailia, Egypt

Abstract

Objective(s): to investigate the capability of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography ([18F]-FDG PET/CT) derived volumetric parameters to predict human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status in breast cancer patients.
Methods: retrospective study enrolled 47 female patients with breast cancer. All patients had pretreatment [18F]-FDG PET/CT. Clinical data, pathology report and HER2 status were retrieved from medical records. In an attempt to assess the predictive value of the PET-derived metabolic parameters, Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed with area under curve analysis performed to detect best cutoff value of significant parameters for detection of HER2 positive.
Results: No statistically significant difference was noted among both groups (HER2 positive and negative) in respect to age, menopausal status, histology, grade, T-stage, N-stage, or antigen Kiel 67 (Ki-67) index. ROC curve successfully marked cutoff point ≥42.35 for total lesion glycolysis (TLG) and ³12.75 for metabolic tumor value (MTV) that are capable to discriminate positive versus negative HER2 expression in breast cancer patients with area under curve (AUC) 0.728 and 0.723 and P-values 0.002 and 0.004 respectively. Such cutoff point was not deduced for standard uptake value (SUV) max. Primary tumor TLG cutoff correlated well with age where 77.8% of patients with TLG  ³42.35 were older than 45 years old compared to 22.2% of them who were younger than 45 years, P-value=0.047. Also 70.3% of patients with TLG exceeds  ³42.35 had T3 and 4 primary tumors while 65% of those with TLG <42.35 their primary tumors were T1 and 2, P-value=0.03. As regards Primary tumor MTV cutoff point, significant correlations were noted in respect to T-stage where 78.2% of the patients with primary tumor MTV ³12.75 were T3 and 4, compared to 66.6% of those with primary tumor MTV <12.75 were T1 and 2, P-value=0.011.
Conclusion: PET-derived volumetrics may serve as non-invasive predictors of biological processes represented here as HER2 expression in breast cancer patients.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2024; 74(3):229-63.
  2. Joseph C, Papadaki A, Althobiti M, Alsaleem M, Aleskandarany MA, Rakha EA. Breast cancer intratumour heterogeneity: current status and clinical implications. Histopathology. 2018; 73(5):717-31.
  3. Hsu JL, Hung MC. The role of HER2, EGFR, and other receptor tyrosine kinases in breast cancer. Cancer and Metastasis Reviews. 2016; 35:575-88.
  4. Asif HM, Sultana S, Ahmed S, Akhtar N, Tariq M. HER-2 positive breast cancer-a mini-review. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention. 2016; 17(4):1609-15.
  5. Varga Z, Noske A, Ramach C, Padberg B, Moch H. Assessment of HER2 status in breast cancer: overall positivity rate and accuracy by fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry in a single institution over 12 years: a quality control study. BMC cancer. 2013; 13:1-9.
  6. Grosselin K, Durand A, Marsolier J, Poitou A, Marangoni E, Nemati F, et al. High-throughput single-cell ChIP-seq identifies heterogeneity of chromatin states in breast cancer. Nature genetics. 2019; 51(6):1060-6.
  7. Pisco AO, Huang S. Non-genetic cancer cell plasticity and therapy-induced stemness in tumour relapse:‘What does not kill me strengthens me’. British journal of cancer. 2015; 112(11):1725-32.
  8. Gallamini A, Zwarthoed C, Borra A. Positron emission tomography (PET) in oncology. Cancers. 2014; 6(4):1821-89.
  9. Aktas GE, Tastekin E, Sarikaya A. Assessment of biological and clinical aggressiveness of invasive ductal breast cancer using baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT-derived volumetric parameters. Nuclear medicine communications. 2018; 39(1):83-93.
  10. Reed JD, Masenge A, Buchner A, Omar F, Reynders D, Vorster M, et al. The utility of metabolic parameters on baseline F-18 FDG PET/CT in predicting treatment response and survival in paediatric and adolescent Hodgkin lymphoma. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021; 10(24):5979.
  11. Bollineni VR, Ytre-Hauge S, Gulati A, Halle MK, Woie K, Salvesen Ø, et al. The prognostic value of preoperative FDG-PET/CT metabolic parameters in cervical cancer patients. European Journal of Hybrid Imaging. 2018; 2(1):1-4.
  12. Rosenberg R, Herrmann K, Gertler R, Künzli B, Essler M, Lordick F, et al. The predictive value of metabolic response to preoperative radiochemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer measured by PET/CT. International journal of colorectal disease. 2009; 24:191-200.
  13. Giuliano AE, Edge SB, Hortobagyi GN. Of the AJCC cancer staging manual: breast cancer. Annals of surgical oncology. 2018; 25:1783-5.
  14. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Allison KH, Harvey BE, Mangu PB, Bartlett JM, et al. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline focused update. Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine. 2018; 142(11):1364-82.
  15. Burstein HJ, Curigliano G, Thürlimann B, Weber WP, Poortmans P, Regan MM, et al. Customizing local and systemic therapies for women with early breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Consensus Guidelines for treatment of early breast cancer 2021. Annals of oncology. 2021; 32(10):1216-35.
  16. Chan YH. Biostatistics 102: quantitative data–parametric & non-parametric tests. Blood Press. 2003; 140(24.08):79.
  17. Chan YH. Biostatistics 103: qualitative data-tests of independence. Singapore Med J. 2003; 44(10):498-503.
  18. Esmat E, Haidary AM, Saadaat R, Rizvi SN, Aleena S, Haidari M, et al. Association of hormone receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2/neu expressions with clinicopathologic factors of breast carcinoma: a cross-sectional study in a tertiary care hospital, Kabul, Afghanistan. BMC cancer. 2024; 24(1):388.
  19. Yadav R, Sen R, Chauhan P. ER, PR, HER2/NEU status and relation to clinico- pathological factors in breast carcinoma. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2016; 8(4):287-90.
  20. Jang Y, Jung H, Kim HN, Seo Y, Alsharif E, Nam SJ, et al. Clinicopathologic characteristics of HER2-positive pure mucinous carcinoma of the breast. Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine. 2020; 54(1):95.
  21. Kinahan PE, Perlman ES, Sunderland JJ, Subramaniam R, Wollenweber SD, Turkington TG, et al. The QIBA profile for FDG PET/CT as an imaging biomarker measuring response to cancer therapy. Radiology. 2020; 294(3):647-57.
  22. Carlier T, Bailly C. State-of-the-art and recent advances in quantification for therapeutic follow-up in oncology using PET. Frontiers in medicine. 2015; 2:18.
  23. Hofheinz F, Langner J, Petr J, Beuthien‐ Baumann B, Steinbach J, Kotzerke J, et al. An automatic method for accurate volume delineation of heterogeneous tumors in PET. Medical physics. 2013; 40(8):082503.
  24. Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015; 42(2):328-54.
  25. Groheux D, Majdoub M, Tixier F, Le Rest CC, Martineau A, Merlet P, et al. Do clinical, histological or immunohistochemical primary tumour characteristics translate into different 18F-FDG PET/CT volumetric and heterogeneity features in stage II/III breast cancer? European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. 2015; 42:1682-91.
  26. Kaida H, Toh U, Hayakawa M, Hattori S, Fujii T, Kurata S, et al. The relationship between 18F-FDG metabolic volumetric parameters and clinicopathological factors of breast cancer. Nuclear medicine communications. 2013; 34(6):562-70.
  27. Zhou BP, Hung MC. Dysregulation of cellular signaling by HER2/neu in breast cancer. Semin Oncol. 2003; 30(5 Suppl 16): 38-48.
  28. Malaih A. Assessment of Healthy Tissue Metabolism to Predict Outcomes in Oncologic [18F] FDG PET/CT (Doctoral dissertation, King’s College London). 2024;1888959_ethesis.
  29. Benz CC. Impact of aging on the biology of breast cancer. Critical reviews in oncology/hematology. 2008; 66(1):65-74.
  30. Chen S, Ibrahim NK, Yan Y, Wong ST, Wang H, Wong FC. Risk stratification in patients with advanced‐stage breast cancer by pretreatment [18F] FDG PET/CT. Cancer. 2015; 121(22):3965-74.
  31. Gil-Rendo A, Martinez-Regueira F, Zornoza G, Garcia-Velloso MJ, Beorlegui C, Rodriguez-Spiteri N. Association between [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose uptake and prognostic parameters in breast cancer. Journal of British Surgery. 2009; 96(2):166-70.
  32. Mohamadien NR, Sayed MH. Correlation between semiquantitative and volumetric 18F-FDG PET/computed tomography parameters and Ki-67 expression in breast cancer. Nuclear Medicine Communications. 2021; 42(6):656-64.
Asia Oceania Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Biology
Volume 13, Issue 1
January 2025
Pages 10-20

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics