PDF herunterladen
Nuklearmedizin 2019; 58(03): 242-248
DOI: 10.1055/a-0891-7650
Original Article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Early metabolic response assessment of breast cancer liver metastases: 4-week posttreatment FDG PET predicts survival after 90Y microsphere radioembolization

Metabolisches Frühansprechen von Leberemetastasen beim Mammakarzinom: Prädiktion des Überlebens bereits 4 Wochen nach 90Y Radioembolisation mittels FDG PET möglich
Amir Sabet
1   Klinikum der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Klinik für Nuklearmedizin, Nuklearmedizin
,
Martin Ries
2   Universitatsklinikum des Saarlandes und Medizinische Fakultät der Universität des Saarlandes, Nuklearmedizin
,
Yamen Al-Khalaf
3   Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Nuklearmedizin
,
Carsten Meyer
4   Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Radiologie
,
Christian Rudlowski
5   Evangelisches Krankenhaus Bergisch Gladbach, Gynäkologie
,
Birgit Simon
4   Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Radiologie
,
Fadi Khreish
2   Universitatsklinikum des Saarlandes und Medizinische Fakultät der Universität des Saarlandes, Nuklearmedizin
,
Samer Ezziddin
6   Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes und Medizinische Fakultät der Universität des Saarlandes
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

25. Februar 2019

09. April 2019

Publikationsdatum:
05. Juni 2019 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Aim To evaluate the feasibility of early metabolic response assessment with 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with breast cancer liver metastases 4 weeks after radioembolization with Yttrium-90 labeled microspheres.

Methods 25 patients (mean age 58y, range 40–74) with advanced stage liver metastases of breast cancer were treated with 1.9 ± 0.4 GBq of 90Y-microspheres in the salvage setting and underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT at baseline and 4 weeks post-radioembolization. 14 patients (56 %) had an excessive hepatic tumor burden (> 50 % of total liver volume), 21 patients (84 %) had extrahepatic disease. Liver lesions with the highest SUVmax were selected as target lesions and a cut-off was set at 50 % reduction to separate responders from non-responders. The predictive impact of metabolic response on overall survival (OS) was investigated along with other prognostic factors.

Results The median OS in this highly advanced metastatic cohort was 7 months (95 % CI, 5–9). All patients had a reduction in SUVmax (mean ΔSUVmax: –49 ± 26 %) at 4 weeks post-treatment. Patients with > 50 % SUVmax reduction survived longer (median OS 13 mo, 95 % CI 8–18) than the remaining patients (median OS 4 mo, 95 % CI 2–6; p = 0.001). From all investigated baseline factors including age, performance status, and presence of extra-hepatic disease, only the hepatic tumor burden had a significant impact on OS (p = 0.02).

Conclusions This is the first preliminary evidence in breast cancer that early post-radioembolization molecular response assessment of treated liver metastases – as early as 4 weeks posttreatment – may predict survival. If confirmed by larger series, FDG PET/CT could be considered for early response-adapted treatment modifications.

Zusammenfassung

Methoden n = 25 Patientinnen (Durchschnittsalter 58 Jahre, 40–74) mit fortgeschritten leberdominant metastasiertem Brustkrebs wurden mit Radioembolisation behandelt (1,9 ± 0,4 GBq). Vor und 4 Wochen nach Radioembolisation erfolgte eine 18F-FDG PET/CT Bildgebung. 14 Patientinnen (56 %) hatten eine sehr hohe hepatische Tumorlast (> 50 % des Lebervolumens), 21 (84 %) auch extrahepatische Tumormanifestationen. Als Zielläsionen wurden die Leberlmetastasen mit den höchsten SUVmax Werten ausgewählt, der Cut-off zur Unterscheidung von Respondern und Non-Respondern lag bei 50 % Reduktion des Ausgangs-SUVmax. Der prädiktive Wert des metabolischen Ansprechens auf das Gesamtüberleben (OS) wurde zusammen mit anderen prognostischen Faktoren untersucht.

Ergebnisse Das mediane Gesamtüberleben in dieser Kohorte betrug 7 Monate (95 % CI, 5–9). Bei allen Patienten konnte 4 Wochen nach Behandlung eine Reduktion des SUVmax der Zielläsionen (Mittelwert ΔSUVmax: –49 ± 26 %) festgestellt werden. Patientinnen mit > 50 % SUVmax-Reduktion überlebten länger (mOS 13 Monate; 95 % CI, 8–18) als die übrigen Patientinnen (mOS 4 Monate; 95 % CI, 2–6; p = 0,001). Von allen untersuchten Ausgangsfaktoren wie Alter, ECOG Score und extrahepat. Befall hatte nur die hepatische Tumorlast einen signifikanten Einfluss auf das Gesamtüberleben (p = 0,02).

Beurteilung Die Studie liefert den ersten Hinweis dafür, dass das metabolischen Frühansprechen von radioembolisierten Lebermetastasen beim Brutkrebs bereits 4 Wochen nach erfolgter SIRT von hoher prädiktiver Relevanz ist. Nach Bestätigung der Ergebnisse in größeren Studien sollte die frühe posttherapeutische FDG-PET/CT eine Optimierung des Patientenmanagement unter Berücksichtigung des Ansprechverhaltens nach Radioembolisation erbringen

Key words

FDG-PET/CT - breast cancer - SIRT - radioembolization - FDG - liver metastases

Schlüsselwörter

Radioembolisation - Brustkrebs - SIRT - FDG-PET/CT - Lebermetastasen
 

  • References

  • 1 Haug AR, Tiega Donfack BP, Trumm C. et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT predicts survival after radioembolization of hepatic metastases from breast cancer. J Nucl Med 2012; 53: 371-377
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kato I, Severson RK, Schwartz AG. Conditional median survival of patients with advanced carcinoma: surveillance, epidemiology, and end results data. Cancer 2001; 92: 2211-2219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 O’Reilly SM, Richards MA, Rubens RD. Liver metastases from breast cancer: the relationship between clinical, biochemical and pathological features and survival. Eur J Cancer 1990; 26: 574-577
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Zinser JW, Hortobagyi GN, Buzdar AU. et al. Clinical course of breast cancer patients with liver metastases. J Clin Oncol 1987; 5: 773-782
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hagemeister Jr FB, Buzdar AU, Luna MA. et al. Causes of death in breast cancer: a clinicopathologic study. Cancer 1980; 46: 162-167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Geschwind JF, Salem R, Carr BI. et al. Yttrium-90 microspheres for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: S194-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ibrahim SM, Lewandowski RJ, Sato KT. et al. Radioembolization for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a clinical review. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14: 1664-1669
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Jiao LR, Szyszko T, Al-Nahhas A. et al. Clinical and imaging experience with yttrium-90 microspheres in the management of unresectable liver tumours. Eur J Surg Oncol 2007; 33: 597-602
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kennedy AS, McNeillie P, Dezarn WA. et al. Treatment parameters and outcome in 680 treatments of internal radiation with resin 90Y-microspheres for unresectable hepatic tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 74: 1494-1500
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Salem R, Thurston KG. Radioembolization with yttrium-90 microspheres: a state-of-the-art brachytherapy treatment for primary and secondary liver malignancies: part 3: comprehensive literature review and future direction. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2006; 17: 1571-1593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Salem R, Thurston KG. Radioembolization with 90yttrium microspheres: a state-of-the-art brachytherapy treatment for primary and secondary liver malignancies. Part 2: special topics. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2006; 17: 1425-1439
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Jakobs TF, Hoffmann RT, Dehm K. et al. Hepatic yttrium-90 radioembolization of chemotherapy-refractory colorectal cancer liver metastases. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2008; 19: 1187-1195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kennedy A, Nag S, Salem R. et al. Recommendations for radioembolization of hepatic malignancies using yttrium-90 microsphere brachytherapy: a consensus panel report from the radioembolization brachytherapy oncology consortium. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 68: 13-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bangash AK, Atassi B, Kaklamani V. et al. 90Y radioembolization of metastatic breast cancer to the liver: toxicity, imaging response, survival. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2007; 18: 621-628
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Coldwell DM, Kennedy AS, Nutting CW. Use of yttrium-90 microspheres in the treatment of unresectable hepatic metastases from breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 69: 800-804
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Jakobs TF, Hoffmann RT, Fischer T. et al. Radioembolization in patients with hepatic metastases from breast cancer. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2008; 19: 683-690
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 de Geus-Oei LF, van Laarhoven HW, Visser EP. et al. Chemotherapy response evaluation with FDG-PET in patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2008; 19: 348-352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Juweid ME, Cheson BD. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 496-507
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ott K, Weber W, Siewert JR. The importance of PET in the diagnosis and response evaluation of esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus 2006; 19: 433-442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Farrag A, Ceulemans G, Voordeckers M. et al. Can 18F-FDG-PET response during radiotherapy be used as a predictive factor for the outcome of head and neck cancer patients?. Nucl Med Commun 2010; 31: 495-501
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Salem R, Thurston KG. Radioembolization with 90Yttrium microspheres: a state-of-the-art brachytherapy treatment for primary and secondary liver malignancies. Part 1: Technical and methodologic considerations. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2006; 17: 1251-1278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ahmadzadehfar H, Biersack HJ, Ezziddin S. Radioembolization of liver tumors with yttrium-90 microspheres. Semin Nucl Med 2010; 40: 105-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Ahmadzadehfar H, Haslerud T, Reichmann K. et al. Residual activity after radioembolization of liver tumours with 90Y resin microspheres. A safe calculation method. Nuklearmedizin Nuclear medicine 2013; 53
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Wong CY, Salem R, Raman S. et al. Evaluating 90Y-glass microsphere treatment response of unresectable colorectal liver metastases by [18 F]FDG PET: a comparison with CT or MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29: 815-820
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Szyszko T, Al-Nahhas A, Canelo R. et al. Assessment of response to treatment of unresectable liver tumours with 90Y microspheres: value of FDG PET versus computed tomography. Nucl Med Commun 2007; 28: 15-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Zerizer I, Al-Nahhas A, Towey D. et al. The role of early (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT in prediction of progression-free survival after (9)(0)Y radioembolization: comparison with RECIST and tumour density criteria. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012; 39: 1391-1399
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Haug AR, Heinemann V, Bruns CJ. et al. 18F-FDG PET independently predicts survival in patients with cholangiocellular carcinoma treated with 90Y microspheres. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011; 38: 1037-1045
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Castellucci P, Nanni C, Farsad M. et al. Potential pitfalls of 18F-FDG PET in a large series of patients treated for malignant lymphoma: prevalence and scan interpretation. Nucl Med Commun 2005; 26: 689-694
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Vallbohmer D, Holscher AH, Dietlein M. et al. [18 F]-Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography for the assessment of histopathologic response and prognosis after completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 2009; 250: 888-894
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Castaldi P, Rufini V, Bussu F. et al. Can “early” and “late”18F-FDG PET-CT be used as prognostic factors for the clinical outcome of patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer treated with radio-chemotherapy?. Radiother Oncol 2012; 103: 63-68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Cianni R, Pelle G, Notarianni E. et al. Radioembolisation with (90)Y-labelled resin microspheres in the treatment of liver metastasis from breast cancer. Eur Radiol 2013; 23: 182-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Barker HE, Paget JT, Khan AA. et al. The tumour microenvironment after radiotherapy: mechanisms of resistance and recurrence. Nature reviews Cancer 2015; 15: 409-425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Kim BM, Hong Y, Lee S. et al. Therapeutic Implications for Overcoming Radiation Resistance in Cancer Therapy. International journal of molecular sciences 2015; 16: 26880-26913
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Riffle S, Hegde RS. Modeling tumor cell adaptations to hypoxia in multicellular tumor spheroids. Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research: CR 2017; 36: 102
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Frey B, Rubner Y, Wunderlich R. et al. Induction of abscopal anti-tumor immunity and immunogenic tumor cell death by ionizing irradiation – implications for cancer therapies. Current medicinal chemistry 2012; 19: 1751-1764
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Sun R, Sbai A, Ganem G. et al. [Non-targeted effects (bystander, abscopal) of external beam radiation therapy: an overview for the clinician]. Cancer radiotherapie : journal de la Societe francaise de radiotherapie oncologique 2014; 18: 770-778
    PubMedGoogle Scholar