PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
November 7, 2006Journal of Clinical Oncology312 citationsOpen Access

Monitoring of Early Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Stage II and III Breast Cancer by 18FFluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography

CRCaroline RousseauADAnne DevillersCSChristine Sagan

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess prospectively the efficacy of sequential 18Ffluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) to evaluate early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and III breast cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Images were acquired with a PET/computed tomography scanner in 64 patients after administration of FDG (5 MBq/kg) at baseline and after the first, second, third, and sixth course of chemotherapy. Ultrasound and mammography were used to assess tumor size. Decrease in the standardized uptake value (SUV) with PET was compared with the pathologic response. RESULTS: Surgery was performed after six courses of chemotherapy and pathologic analysis revealed gross residual disease in 28 patients and minimal residual disease in 36 patients. Although SUV data did not vary much in nonresponders (based on pathology findings), they decreased markedly to background levels in 94% (34 of 36) of responders. When using 60% of SUV at baseline as the cutoff value, the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value of FDG PET were 61%, 96%, and 68% after one course of chemotherapy, 89%, 95%, and 85% after two courses, and 88%, 73%, and 83% after three courses, respectively. The same parameters with ultrasound (US) and mammography were 64%, 43%, and 55%, and 31%, 56%, and 45%, respectively. Assessment of tumor response with US or mammography was never significant whatever the cutoff. CONCLUSION: Pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and III breast cancer can be predicted accurately by FDG PET after two courses of chemotherapy.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Rousseau et al. (2006) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a617cc02004386bc7d0ab21https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.05.7406
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Predictive value of [18F]FDG PET for pathological response of breast cancer to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy2004 · 117 citations
  2. 2Metabolic characterization of breast tumors with positron emission tomography using F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose.1996 · 242 citations
  3. 3Pathologic response to induction chemotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the breast: a determinant of outcome.1995 · 431 citations
  4. 4TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours1987 · 16,123 citations
  5. 518F-FDG PET and 99mTc-sestamibi scintimammography for monitoring breast cancer response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a comparative study2001 · 72 citations