Detection of the Metabolic Relationship Between Primary Tumor in Breast Cancer According to Molecular Classification in Positron Emission Tomography; Retrospective Cohort Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31964/mltj.v0i0.426Keywords:
Breast cancer, positron emission tomography, fluorodeoxyglucose, SUV max, ki67.Abstract
The main objective of the study was to investigate whether the maximum SUV emission tomography values of Positron differ between luminal molecular properties. The second objective was to examine the relationship between positron emission tomography SUV max and ki67 in primary tumors and axillary lymphadenopathy. In the study between January 2018 and December 2020, 158 patients with stage 1-2-3 breast cancer admitted to the outpatient clinic of general surgery and medical oncology Yüksek htisas University Medicalpark Ankara were retrospectively evaluated. The results of the study considering the relationship between molecular properties and metabolic activity of primary tumors, found a significant relationship between grade (p<0.005), estrogen receptor (p:0.019), and progesterone receptor (p:0.045). More important differences were observed in the luminal type, especially between such as basal and luminal A (p: 0.021). A significant correlation was found in the Pearson correlation test, which was performed between the primary tumor and the SUV values for maxillary axillary lymphadenopathy (p < 0.001, correlation coefficient: 0.331). For Ki67, there was a significant, albeit low, correlation between the SUV max primary tumors (p: 0.026, correlation coefficient 0.179). Although there is a statistically positive trend between Ki67 and axillary SUV max, there is no significant difference (p: 0.06 correlation coefficient: 0.157) In conclusion, we found a significant relationship between max. positron emission tomography SUV, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, grade, ki67, and molecular subtypes such as basal and luminal A of the tumor. We found a correlation between the primary tumor and the metabolic activity of axillary lymphadenopathy. It will be meaningful to plan treatment and follow-up according to these results.References
Can A., Alacacioglu A., Kucukzeybek, Y., Erten, C. Cokmert, S., Demir, Lütfiye E., Tarhan, M. O. (2013). The relationship of insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome with known breast cancer prognostic factors in postmenopausal breast cancer patients. J Buon, 18, 845-50.
Coates AS, Winer EP, Goldhirsch A, Gelber RD, Gnant M, Piccart-Gebhart M, et al. (2015). Panel Members. Tailoring therapies--improving the management of early breast cancer: St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2015. Ann Oncol, 26(8),1533-46. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv221.
Garcia Vicente AM, Soriano Castrejón Á, León Martín A, Chacón López-Muñiz I, Muñoz Madero V, et al. (2013). Molecular subtypes of breast cancer: metabolic correlation with ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 40(9), 1304-11. doi: 10.1007/s00259-013-2418-7.
Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ, et al. (2011). Strategies for subtypes – dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol, 22, 1736–47.
Heudel P, Cimarelli S, Montella A, Bouteille C, Mognetti T. (2010). Value of PET-FDG in primary breast cancer based on histopathological and immunohistochemical prognostic factors. Int J Clin Oncol, 15(6), 588-93. doi: 10.1007/s10147-010-0120-3.
Higuchi T, Nishimukai A, Ozawa H, Fujimoto Y, Yanai A, Miyagawa Y, et al. (2016). Prognostic significance of preoperative 18F-FDG PET/CT for breast cancer subtypes. Breast, 30, 5-12. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2016.08.003. Epub 2016 Aug 29.
Kim YH, Yoon HJ, Kim Y, Kim BS. (2015). Axillary Lymph Node-to-Primary Tumor Standard Uptake Value Ratio on Preoperative (18)F-FDG PET/CT: A Prognostic Factor for Invasive Ductal Breast Cancer. J Breast Cancer, 18(2), 173-80. doi: 10.4048/jbc.2015.18.2.173.
Kitajima K, Fukushima K, Miyoshi Y, Nishimukai A, Hirota S, Igarashi Y, Katsuura T, Maruyama K, Hirota S. (2015). Association between ¹⁸F-FDG uptake and molecular subtype of breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 42(9), 1371-7. doi: 10.1007/s00259-015-3070-1.
Kitajima, K., Miyoshi, Y., Yamano, T. et al. (2018). Prognostic value of FDG-PET and DWI in breast cancer. Ann Nucl Med, 32, 44–53.
Muzahir S. (2020). Molecular Breast Cancer Imaging in the Era of Precision Medicine. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 215(6), 1512-1519. doi: 10.2214/AJR.20.22883.
O, J.H., Choi, W.H., Han, E.J. et al. (2013). The Prognostic Value of 18F-FDG PET/CT for Early Recurrence in Operable Breast Cancer: Comparison with TNM Stage. Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 47, 263–267.
Sasaki M, Tozaki M, Kubota K, Murakami W, Yotsumoto D, Sagara Y, et al. (2018). Simultaneous whole-body and breast 18F-FDG PET/MRI examinations in patients with breast cancer: a comparison of apparent diffusion coefficients and maximum standardized uptake values. Jpn J Radiol, 36(2), 122-133. doi: 10.1007/s11604-017-0707-y.
Son SH, Kim DH, Hong CM, Kim CY, Jeong SY, Lee SW, et al. (2014). Prognostic implication of intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity in invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. BMC Cancer, 14, 585. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-14-585.
Surov A, Meyer HJ, Wienke A. (2019). Associations Between PET Parameters and Expression of Ki-67 in Breast Cancer. Transl Oncol, 12(2), 375-380. doi: 10.1016/j.tranon.2018.11.005. Epub 2018 Dec 3.
Van Mechelen M, Van Herck A, Punie K, Nevelsteen I, Smeets A, Neven P, et al. (2020). Behavior of metastatic breast cancer according to subtype. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 181(1), 115-125. doi: 10.1007/s10549-020-05597-3. Epub 2020 Mar 19. Erratum in: Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021
Wang J, Shih TT, Yen RF. (2017). Multiparametric Evaluation of Treatment Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Using Integrated PET/MR. Clin Nucl Med, 42(7), 506-513.
Coates AS, Winer EP, Goldhirsch A, Gelber RD, Gnant M, Piccart-Gebhart M, et al. (2015). Panel Members. Tailoring therapies--improving the management of early breast cancer: St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2015. Ann Oncol, 26(8),1533-46. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv221.
Garcia Vicente AM, Soriano Castrejón Á, León Martín A, Chacón López-Muñiz I, Muñoz Madero V, et al. (2013). Molecular subtypes of breast cancer: metabolic correlation with ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 40(9), 1304-11. doi: 10.1007/s00259-013-2418-7.
Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ, et al. (2011). Strategies for subtypes – dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol, 22, 1736–47.
Heudel P, Cimarelli S, Montella A, Bouteille C, Mognetti T. (2010). Value of PET-FDG in primary breast cancer based on histopathological and immunohistochemical prognostic factors. Int J Clin Oncol, 15(6), 588-93. doi: 10.1007/s10147-010-0120-3.
Higuchi T, Nishimukai A, Ozawa H, Fujimoto Y, Yanai A, Miyagawa Y, et al. (2016). Prognostic significance of preoperative 18F-FDG PET/CT for breast cancer subtypes. Breast, 30, 5-12. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2016.08.003. Epub 2016 Aug 29.
Kim YH, Yoon HJ, Kim Y, Kim BS. (2015). Axillary Lymph Node-to-Primary Tumor Standard Uptake Value Ratio on Preoperative (18)F-FDG PET/CT: A Prognostic Factor for Invasive Ductal Breast Cancer. J Breast Cancer, 18(2), 173-80. doi: 10.4048/jbc.2015.18.2.173.
Kitajima K, Fukushima K, Miyoshi Y, Nishimukai A, Hirota S, Igarashi Y, Katsuura T, Maruyama K, Hirota S. (2015). Association between ¹⁸F-FDG uptake and molecular subtype of breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 42(9), 1371-7. doi: 10.1007/s00259-015-3070-1.
Kitajima, K., Miyoshi, Y., Yamano, T. et al. (2018). Prognostic value of FDG-PET and DWI in breast cancer. Ann Nucl Med, 32, 44–53.
Muzahir S. (2020). Molecular Breast Cancer Imaging in the Era of Precision Medicine. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 215(6), 1512-1519. doi: 10.2214/AJR.20.22883.
O, J.H., Choi, W.H., Han, E.J. et al. (2013). The Prognostic Value of 18F-FDG PET/CT for Early Recurrence in Operable Breast Cancer: Comparison with TNM Stage. Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 47, 263–267.
Sasaki M, Tozaki M, Kubota K, Murakami W, Yotsumoto D, Sagara Y, et al. (2018). Simultaneous whole-body and breast 18F-FDG PET/MRI examinations in patients with breast cancer: a comparison of apparent diffusion coefficients and maximum standardized uptake values. Jpn J Radiol, 36(2), 122-133. doi: 10.1007/s11604-017-0707-y.
Son SH, Kim DH, Hong CM, Kim CY, Jeong SY, Lee SW, et al. (2014). Prognostic implication of intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity in invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. BMC Cancer, 14, 585. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-14-585.
Surov A, Meyer HJ, Wienke A. (2019). Associations Between PET Parameters and Expression of Ki-67 in Breast Cancer. Transl Oncol, 12(2), 375-380. doi: 10.1016/j.tranon.2018.11.005. Epub 2018 Dec 3.
Van Mechelen M, Van Herck A, Punie K, Nevelsteen I, Smeets A, Neven P, et al. (2020). Behavior of metastatic breast cancer according to subtype. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 181(1), 115-125. doi: 10.1007/s10549-020-05597-3. Epub 2020 Mar 19. Erratum in: Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021
Wang J, Shih TT, Yen RF. (2017). Multiparametric Evaluation of Treatment Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Using Integrated PET/MR. Clin Nucl Med, 42(7), 506-513.
Downloads
Published
2022-06-27
How to Cite
Alyanak, A., & Aslan, F. (2022). Detection of the Metabolic Relationship Between Primary Tumor in Breast Cancer According to Molecular Classification in Positron Emission Tomography; Retrospective Cohort Study. Medical Laboratory Technology Journal, 8(1), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.31964/mltj.v0i0.426
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Publishing your paper with Medical Laboratory Technology Journal (MLTJ) means that the author or authors retain the copyright in the paper. MLTJ granted an author(s) rights to put the paper onto a website, distribute it to colleagues, give it to students, use it in your thesis etc, even commercially. The author(s) can reuse the figures and tables and other information contained in their paper published by MLTJ in future papers or work without having to ask anyone for permission, provided that the figures, tables or other information that is included in the new paper or work properly references the published paper as the source of the figures, tables or other information, and the new paper or work is not direct at private monetary gain or commercial advantage.
MLTJ journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. This license lets others remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. MLTJ journal Open Access articles are distributed under this Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA). Articles can be read and shared for All purposes under the following conditions:
BY: You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.SA: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
