|
1
|
Boers J, Eisses B, Zwager MC, van Geel JJL, Bensch F, de Vries EFJ, Hospers GAP, Glaudemans AWJM, Brouwers AH, den Dekker MAM, Elias SG, Kuip EJM, van Herpen CML, Jager A, van der Veldt AAM, Oprea-Lager DE, de Vries EGE, van der Vegt B, Menke-van der Houven van Oordt WC, Schröder CP. Correlation between Histopathological Prognostic Tumor Characteristics and [ 18F]FDG Uptake in Corresponding Metastases in Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Breast Cancer. Diagnostics (Basel) 2024; 14:416. [PMID: 38396455 PMCID: PMC10887896 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14040416] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2023] [Revised: 02/05/2024] [Accepted: 02/07/2024] [Indexed: 02/25/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In metastatic breast cancer (MBC), [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography ([18F]FDG-PET/CT) can be used for staging. We evaluated the correlation between BC histopathological characteristics and [18F]FDG uptake in corresponding metastases. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with non-rapidly progressive MBC of all subtypes prospectively underwent a baseline histological metastasis biopsy and [18F]FDG-PET. Biopsies were assessed for estrogen, progesterone, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ER, PR, HER2); Ki-67; and histological subtype. [18F]FDG uptake was expressed as maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and results were expressed as geometric means. RESULTS Of 200 patients, 188 had evaluable metastasis biopsies, and 182 of these contained tumor. HER2 positivity and Ki-67 ≥ 20% were correlated with higher [18F]FDG uptake (estimated geometric mean SUVmax 10.0 and 8.8, respectively; p = 0.0064 and p = 0.014). [18F]FDG uptake was lowest in ER-positive/HER2-negative BC and highest in HER2-positive BC (geometric mean SUVmax 6.8 and 10.0, respectively; p = 0.0058). Although [18F]FDG uptake was lower in invasive lobular carcinoma (n = 31) than invasive carcinoma NST (n = 146) (estimated geometric mean SUVmax 5.8 versus 7.8; p = 0.014), the metastasis detection rate was similar. CONCLUSIONS [18F]FDG-PET is a powerful tool to detect metastases, including invasive lobular carcinoma. Although BC histopathological characteristics are related to [18F]FDG uptake, [18F]FDG-PET and biopsy remain complementary in MBC staging (NCT01957332).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jorianne Boers
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 Groningen, The Netherlands; (J.B.); (B.E.); (J.J.L.v.G.); (F.B.); (G.A.P.H.); (E.G.E.d.V.)
| | - Bertha Eisses
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 Groningen, The Netherlands; (J.B.); (B.E.); (J.J.L.v.G.); (F.B.); (G.A.P.H.); (E.G.E.d.V.)
| | - Mieke C. Zwager
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 Groningen, The Netherlands; (M.C.Z.); (B.v.d.V.)
| | - Jasper J. L. van Geel
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 Groningen, The Netherlands; (J.B.); (B.E.); (J.J.L.v.G.); (F.B.); (G.A.P.H.); (E.G.E.d.V.)
| | - Frederike Bensch
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 Groningen, The Netherlands; (J.B.); (B.E.); (J.J.L.v.G.); (F.B.); (G.A.P.H.); (E.G.E.d.V.)
| | - Erik F. J. de Vries
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 Groningen, The Netherlands; (E.F.J.d.V.); (A.W.J.M.G.); (A.H.B.)
| | - Geke A. P. Hospers
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 Groningen, The Netherlands; (J.B.); (B.E.); (J.J.L.v.G.); (F.B.); (G.A.P.H.); (E.G.E.d.V.)
| | - Andor W. J. M. Glaudemans
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 Groningen, The Netherlands; (E.F.J.d.V.); (A.W.J.M.G.); (A.H.B.)
| | - Adrienne H. Brouwers
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 Groningen, The Netherlands; (E.F.J.d.V.); (A.W.J.M.G.); (A.H.B.)
| | - Martijn A. M. den Dekker
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 Groningen, The Netherlands;
| | - Sjoerd G. Elias
- Department of Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3584 Utrecht, The Netherlands;
| | - Evelien J. M. Kuip
- Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud Medical Center, 6500 Nijmegen, The Netherlands; (E.J.M.K.); (C.M.L.v.H.)
| | - Carla M. L. van Herpen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud Medical Center, 6500 Nijmegen, The Netherlands; (E.J.M.K.); (C.M.L.v.H.)
| | - Agnes Jager
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, 3015 Rotterdam, The Netherlands; (A.J.); (A.A.M.v.d.V.)
| | - Astrid A. M. van der Veldt
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, 3015 Rotterdam, The Netherlands; (A.J.); (A.A.M.v.d.V.)
| | - Daniela E. Oprea-Lager
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location VU University Medical Center, 1081 Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
| | - Elisabeth G. E. de Vries
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 Groningen, The Netherlands; (J.B.); (B.E.); (J.J.L.v.G.); (F.B.); (G.A.P.H.); (E.G.E.d.V.)
| | - Bert van der Vegt
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 Groningen, The Netherlands; (M.C.Z.); (B.v.d.V.)
| | | | - Carolina P. Schröder
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 Groningen, The Netherlands; (J.B.); (B.E.); (J.J.L.v.G.); (F.B.); (G.A.P.H.); (E.G.E.d.V.)
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dutch Cancer Institute, 1066 Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
van Geel JJL, de Vries EFJ, van Kruchten M, Hospers GAP, Glaudemans AWJM, Schröder CP. Molecular imaging as biomarker for treatment response and outcome in breast cancer. Ther Adv Med Oncol 2023; 15:17588359231170738. [PMID: 37223262 PMCID: PMC10201167 DOI: 10.1177/17588359231170738] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2022] [Accepted: 03/28/2023] [Indexed: 05/25/2023] Open
Abstract
Molecular imaging, such as positron emission tomography (PET), is increasingly used as biomarker to predict and assess treatment response in breast cancer. The number of biomarkers is expanding with specific tracers for tumour characteristics throughout the body and this information can be used to aid the decision-making process. These measurements include metabolic activity using [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose PET ([18F]FDG-PET), oestrogen receptor (ER) expression using 16α-[18F]Fluoro-17β-oestradiol ([18F]FES)-PET and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression using PET with radiolabelled trastuzumab (HER2-PET). In early breast cancer, baseline [18F]FDG-PET is frequently used for staging, but limited subtype-specific data reduce its usefulness as biomarker for treatment response or outcome. Early metabolic change on serial [18F]FDG-PET is increasingly used in the neo-adjuvant setting as dynamic biomarker to predict pathological complete response to systemic therapy, potentially allowing de-intensification or step-up intensification of treatment. In the metastatic setting, baseline [18F]FDG-PET and [18F]FES-PET can be used as biomarker to predict treatment response, in triple-negative and ER-positive breast cancer, respectively. Metabolic progression on repeated [18F]FDG-PET appears to precede progressive disease on standard evaluation imaging; however, subtype-specific studies are limited and more prospective data are needed before implementation in clinical practice. Even though (repeated) [18F]FDG-PET, [18F]FES-PET and HER2-PEt all show promising results as biomarkers to predict therapy response and outcome, for eventual integration into clinical practice, future studies will have to clarify at what timepoint this integration has to optimally take place.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jasper J. L. van Geel
- Department of Medical Oncology, University
Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The
Netherlands
| | - Erik F. J. de Vries
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular
Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen,
Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Michel van Kruchten
- Department of Medical Oncology, University
Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The
Netherlands
| | - Geke A. P. Hospers
- Department of Medical Oncology, University
Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The
Netherlands
| | - Andor W. J. M. Glaudemans
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular
Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen,
Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Carolina P. Schröder
- Department of Medical Oncology, University
Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The
Netherlands
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands
Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam 1066 CX, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Voorwerk L, Isaeva OI, Horlings HM, Balduzzi S, Chelushkin M, Bakker NAM, Champanhet E, Garner H, Sikorska K, Loo CE, Kemper I, Mandjes IAM, de Maaker M, van Geel JJL, Boers J, de Boer M, Salgado R, van Dongen MGJ, Sonke GS, de Visser KE, Schumacher TN, Blank CU, Wessels LFA, Jager A, Tjan-Heijnen VCG, Schröder CP, Linn SC, Kok M. PD-L1 blockade in combination with carboplatin as immune induction in metastatic lobular breast cancer: the GELATO trial. Nat Cancer 2023; 4:535-549. [PMID: 37038006 PMCID: PMC10132987 DOI: 10.1038/s43018-023-00542-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/09/2022] [Accepted: 03/08/2023] [Indexed: 04/12/2023]
Abstract
Invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) is the second most common histological breast cancer subtype, but ILC-specific trials are lacking. Translational research revealed an immune-related ILC subset, and in mouse ILC models, synergy between immune checkpoint blockade and platinum was observed. In the phase II GELATO trial ( NCT03147040 ), patients with metastatic ILC were treated with weekly carboplatin (area under the curve 1.5 mg ml-1 min-1) as immune induction for 12 weeks and atezolizumab (PD-L1 blockade; triweekly) from the third week until progression. Four of 23 evaluable patients had a partial response (17%), and 2 had stable disease, resulting in a clinical benefit rate of 26%. From these six patients, four had triple-negative ILC (TN-ILC). We observed higher CD8+ T cell infiltration, immune checkpoint expression and exhausted T cells after treatment. With this GELATO trial, we show that ILC-specific clinical trials are feasible and demonstrate promising antitumor activity of atezolizumab with carboplatin, particularly for TN-ILC, and provide insights for the design of highly needed ILC-specific trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leonie Voorwerk
- Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Olga I Isaeva
- Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Hugo M Horlings
- Department of Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sara Balduzzi
- Department of Biometrics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Maksim Chelushkin
- Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Division of Molecular Carcinogenesis, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Noor A M Bakker
- Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Oncode Institute, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Elisa Champanhet
- Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Hannah Garner
- Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Oncode Institute, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Karolina Sikorska
- Department of Biometrics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Claudette E Loo
- Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Inge Kemper
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Ingrid A M Mandjes
- Department of Biometrics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Michiel de Maaker
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jasper J L van Geel
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Jorianne Boers
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Maaike de Boer
- Department of Medical Oncology, GROW, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Roberto Salgado
- Department of Pathology, GZA-ZNA hospitals, Antwerp, Belgium
- Division of Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Marloes G J van Dongen
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Gabe S Sonke
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Karin E de Visser
- Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Oncode Institute, Utrecht, the Netherlands
- Department of Immunology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Ton N Schumacher
- Oncode Institute, Utrecht, the Netherlands
- Division of Molecular Oncology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Hematology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Christian U Blank
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Division of Molecular Oncology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Lodewyk F A Wessels
- Division of Molecular Carcinogenesis, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Oncode Institute, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Agnes Jager
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen
- Department of Medical Oncology, GROW, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Carolien P Schröder
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Sabine C Linn
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Marleen Kok
- Division of Tumor Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
van Geel JJL, Boers J, Elias SG, Glaudemans AWJM, de Vries EFJ, Hospers GAP, van Kruchten M, Kuip EJM, Jager A, Menke-van der Houven van Oordt WC, van der Vegt B, de Vries EGE, Schröder CP. Clinical Validity of 16α-[ 18F]Fluoro-17β-Estradiol Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography to Assess Estrogen Receptor Status in Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2022; 40:3642-3652. [PMID: 35584346 DOI: 10.1200/jco.22.00400] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Determining the estrogen receptor (ER) status is essential in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) management. Whole-body ER imaging with 16α-[18F]fluoro-17β-estradiol positron emission tomography ([18F]FES-PET) is increasingly used for this purpose. To establish the clinical validity of the [18F]FES-PET, we studied the diagnostic accuracy of qualitative and quantitative [18F]FES-PET assessment to predict ER expression by immunohistochemistry in a metastasis. METHODS In a prospective multicenter trial, 200 patients with newly diagnosed MBC underwent extensive workup including molecular imaging. For this subanalysis, ER expression in the biopsied metastasis was related to qualitative whole-body [18F]FES-PET evaluation and quantitative [18F]FES uptake in the corresponding metastasis. A review and meta-analysis regarding [18F]FES-PET diagnostic performance were performed. RESULTS Whole-body [18F]FES-PET assessment predicted ER expression in the biopsied metastasis with good accuracy: a sensitivity of 95% (95% CI, 89 to 97), a specificity of 80% (66 to 89), a positive predictive value (PPV) of 93% (87 to 96), and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 85% (72 to 92) in 181 of 200 evaluable patients. Quantitative [18F]FES uptake predicted ER immunohistochemistry in the corresponding metastasis with a sensitivity/specificity of 91%/69% and a PPV/NPV of 90%/71% in 156 of 200 evaluable patients. For bone metastases, PPV/NPV was 92%/81%. Meta-analysis with addition of our data has increased diagnostic performance and narrowed the 95% CIs compared with previous studies with a sensitivity/specificity of both 86% (81 to 90 and 73 to 93, respectively). CONCLUSION In this largest prospective series so far, we established the clinical validity of [18F]FES-PET to determine tumor ER status in MBC. In view of the high diagnostic accuracy of qualitatively assessed whole-body [18F]FES-PET, this noninvasive imaging modality can be considered a valid alternative to a biopsy of a metastasis to determine ER status in newly MBC (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01957332).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jasper J L van Geel
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Jorianne Boers
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Sjoerd G Elias
- Department of Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Andor W J M Glaudemans
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Erik F J de Vries
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Geke A P Hospers
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Michel van Kruchten
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Evelien J M Kuip
- Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Agnes Jager
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Bert van der Vegt
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Elisabeth G E de Vries
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Carolina P Schröder
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dutch Cancer Institute, Amsterdam and University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|