5 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Molecular Imaging for Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer Clinical Applications of Whole Body and Dedicated Breast Positron Emission Tomography
18F-fluoroestradiol (18F-FES) is a Food and Drug Administration-approved radiopharmaceutical used for molecular imaging of the estrogen receptor (ER). When combined with PET, 18F-FES may improve the diagnosis of ER-positive breast cancer in the metastatic setting and provide insights into tumor heterogeneity. In this article, we review data on the use of 18F-FES imaging for treatment selection, staging, imaging lobular breast cancer, and the novel breast specific imaging tool, dedicated breast PET
Recommended from our members
Quantifying hormone receptor status in lobular breast cancer in an institutional series: the relationship between estrogen and progesterone receptor status and outcomes.
PURPOSE: Recent guidelines defined a new reporting category of ER-low-positive breast cancer based on immunohistochemistry (IHC). While low positivity of either hormone receptor is uncommon in invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), we sought to investigate whether relatively low hormone receptor positivity was associated with tumor characteristics and patient outcomes in a single institutional cohort. METHODS: We searched an institutional database for cases of stage I-III ILC with available IHC reports. Based on prior published categories in ILC, ER was classified as low, medium, or high as defined by ER staining of 10-69%, 70-89%, and ≥ 90% respectively. PR low and high tumors were defined by < 20%, or ≥ 20% staining respectively. We used chi-squared tests, t-tests, and Cox proportional hazards models to evaluate associations between ER/PR categories and tumor characteristics or disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 707 ILC cases, with 11% of cases categorized as ER low, 15.1% as medium, and 73.8% as high. The majority (67.6%) were PR high. Patients with ER low/medium expression were significantly younger, and more likely to also have PR low and/or HER2 positive tumors compared to those that were ER high. In a Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age, stage, grade, pleomorphic histology, and treatment, ER category was not prognostic for DFS, but PR negative and PR low status each had significantly worse DFS compared to PR high status (HR 3.5, 95% CI 1.8-6.7, p < 0.001; and HR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1-3.5, p = 0.015, respectively). CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the relevance of quantifying ER and PR within ILC
Recommended from our members
Area Deprivation Index in Patients with Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast: Associations with Tumor Characteristics and Outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Although investigators have shown associations between socioeconomic status (SES) and outcomes in breast cancer, there is a paucity of such data for invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), the second most common type of breast cancer. Herein we evaluated the relationship between SES with tumor features and outcomes in stage I to III patients with ILC. METHODS: We analyzed a prospectively maintained institutional ILC database and utilized the area deprivation index (ADI) to determine neighborhood adversity, an indicator of SES. We used Cox proportional hazards models in Stata 17.0 to evaluate relationships between ADI quintile (Q), race, body mass index (BMI), clinicopathologic features, treatment type, and event-free survival (EFS). RESULTS: Of 804 patients with ILC, 21.4% lived in neighborhoods classified as ADI Q1 (least resource-deprived) and 19.7% in Q5 (most resource-deprived). Higher deprivation was significantly associated with larger tumor size (3.6 cm in Q5 vs. 3.1 cm in Q1), increased presence of lymphovascular invasion (8.9% in Q5 vs. 6.7% in Q1), and decreased use of adjuvant endocrine therapy (67.1% in Q5 vs. 73.6% in Q1). On multivariable analysis, tumor size, receptor subtypes, and omission of adjuvant endocrine therapy were associated with reduced EFS. CONCLUSIONS: These data show that patients with ILC and higher ADI experience more aggressive tumors and differences in treatment. More data evaluating the complex relationships between these factors is needed to optimize outcomes for patients with ILC, regardless of SES. IMPACT: ADI is associated with differences in patients with ILC
Recommended from our members
HER-2 low status in early-stage invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: associated factors and outcomes in an institutional series
PurposeHER2 overexpression has a central role in breast cancer carcinogenesis and is associated with poor prognosis if untreated. Lately, identification of HER2-low breast cancer has been proposed to select patients for novel HER2-directed chemotherapy and includes cancers with immunohistochemistry 1 + or 2 + with negative FISH, encompassing approximately 55-60% of all breast carcinomas. In early-stage breast cancer, the prognostic significance of HER2 low-disease is less well understood, with a particular paucity of data evaluating the prevalence and implications of HER2-low status in invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC).MethodsWe evaluated 666 stage I-III ILC tumors from a prospectively maintained institutional database, comparing clinicopathologic features and disease-free survival (DFS) using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model.ResultsHER2-low status was common in this cohort of patients with ILC, but most clinicopathologic features did not differ between HER2-low and HER2-negative cases. However, when adjusting for tumor size, number of positive nodes, ER/PR status, and local therapy received, patients with HER2-low status had worse disease-free survival (DFS) than those with HER2-negative tumors (hazard ratio 2.0, 95% confidence interval 1.0-4.1, p = 0.05).ConclusionThis difference in DFS supports the notion that HER2-low and HER2-negative early stage ILC may differ clinically, despite similar clinicopathologic features. Further investigation into the potential benefit of HER2 targeted therapy in HER2-low early-stage breast cancer, and specifically lobular cancer, is warranted to ensure optimal outcomes in this distinct tumor subtype
Recommended from our members
18F-FDG Dedicated Breast PET Complementary to Breast MRI for Evaluating Early Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.
Purpose To compare quantitative measures of tumor metabolism and perfusion using fluorine 18 (18F) fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) dedicated breast PET (dbPET) and breast dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI during early treatment with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Materials and Methods Prospectively collected DCE MRI and 18F-FDG dbPET examinations were analyzed at baseline (T0) and after 3 weeks (T1) of NAC in 20 participants with 22 invasive breast cancers. FDG dbPET-derived standardized uptake value (SUV), metabolic tumor volume, and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) and MRI-derived percent enhancement (PE), signal enhancement ratio (SER), and functional tumor volume (FTV) were calculated at both time points. Differences between FDG dbPET and MRI parameters were evaluated after stratifying by receptor status, Ki-67 index, and residual cancer burden. Parameters were compared using Wilcoxon signed rank and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results High Ki-67 tumors had higher baseline SUVmean (difference, 5.1; P = .01) and SUVpeak (difference, 5.5; P = .04). At T1, decreases were observed in FDG dbPET measures (pseudo-median difference T0 minus T1 value [95% CI]) of SUVmax (-6.2 [-10.2, -2.6]; P < .001), SUVmean (-2.6 [-4.9, -1.3]; P < .001), SUVpeak (-4.2 [-6.9, -2.3]; P < .001), and TLG (-29.1 mL3 [-71.4, -6.8]; P = .005) and MRI measures of SERpeak (-1.0 [-1.3, -0.2]; P = .02) and FTV (-11.6 mL3 [-22.2, -1.7]; P = .009). Relative to nonresponsive tumors, responsive tumors showed a difference (95% CI) in percent change in SUVmax of -34.3% (-55.9%, 1.5%; P = .06) and in PEpeak of -42.4% (95% CI: -110.5%, 8.5%; P = .08). Conclusion 18F-FDG dbPET was sensitive to early changes during NAC and provided complementary information to DCE MRI that may be useful for treatment response evaluation. Keywords: Breast, PET, Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MRI Clinical trial registration no. NCT01042379 Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024