Prospective comparison of early interim 18F-FDG-PET with 18F-FLT-PET for predicting treatment response and survival in metastatic breast cancer

• Main Authors: Tzu-Pei Su, Jen-Seng Huang, Pei-Hung Chang, Kar-Wai Lui, Jason Chia-Hsun Hsieh, Shu-Hang Ng, Sheng-Chieh Chan
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2021-08-01
• Series: BMC Cancer
• Subjects: Breast cancer; Positron-emission tomography; 18F-FDG; 18F-FLT; Prognosis
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08649-z

Abstract Background To compare the value of interim 18F-FLT-PET and 18F-FDG-PET for predicting treatment outcomes in patients with metastatic breast cancer after salvage therapy. Methods Patients with metastatic breast cancer received PET/CT using 18F-FLT and 18F-FDG at baseline, after the 1st and 2nd cycle of systemic chemotherapy. The clinical response was classified according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 based on contrast-enhanced CT after 3 months of systemic chemotherapy. The metabolic response on PET was assessed according to European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer criteria or PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) and was correlated to the clinical response, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS). Results Twenty-five patients entered final analysis. On 18F-FDG-PET, clinical responders after 2 chemotherapy cycles (post-2c) had a significantly greater reduction of maximal standardized uptake value (SUV) and the peak SUV corrected for lean body mass (SULpeak) of the tumor than non-responders (P = 0.030 and 0.003). Metabolic response determined by PERCIST on post-2c 18F-FDG-PET showed a high area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.801 in predicting clinical response (P = 0.011). Patients who were metabolic responders by PERCIST on post-2c 18F-FDG-PET had a significantly longer PFS (53.8% vs. 16.7%, P = 0.014) and OS (100% vs. 47.6%, P = 0.046) than non-responders. Survival differences between responders and non-responders in the interim 18F-FLT-PET were not significant. Conclusions 18F-FLT-PET failed to show an advantage over 18F-FDG-PET in predicting the treatment response and survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Assessment of treatment outcome by interim 18F-FDG-PET may aid treatment. Trial registration The study was retrospectively registered on 02/06/2020 on Clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT04411966 ).