Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2011
Between-patient and within-patient (site-to-site) variability in estrogen receptor binding, measured in vivo by 18F-fluoroestradiol PET.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kurland Brenda F, Peterson Lanell M, Lee Jean H, Linden Hannah M, Schubert Erin K, Dunnwald Lisa K, Link Jeanne M, Krohn Kenneth A, Mankoff David A
Аннотация
UNLABELLED: Heterogeneity of estrogen receptor (ER) expression may be an important predictor of breast cancer therapeutic response. (18)F-fluoroestradiol PET produces in vivo quantitative measurements of regional estrogen binding in breast cancer tumors. We describe within-patient (site-to-site) and between-patient heterogeneity of lesions in patients scheduled to receive endocrine therapy.
METHODS: In 91 patients with a prior ER-positive biopsy, 505 lesions were analyzed for both (18)F-fluoroestradiol and (18)F-FDG uptake and the (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG uptake ratio. Standardized uptake values (SUVs) were recorded for up to 16 lesions per patient, of 1.5 cm or more and visible on (18)F-FDG PET or conventional staging. Linear mixed-effects regression models examined associations between PET parameters and patient or lesion characteristics and estimated variance components. A reader study of SUV measurements for 9 scans further examined sources of within-patient variability.
RESULTS: Average (18)F-fluoroestradiol uptake and (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG ratio varied greatly across these patients, despite a history of ER-positive disease: about 37% had low or absent (18)F-fluoroestradiol uptake even with marked (18)F-FDG uptake. (18)F-fluoroestradiol SUV and (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG ratio measurements within patients with multiple lesions were clustered around the patient's average value in most cases. Summarizing these findings, the intraclass correlation coefficient (proportion of total variation that is between-patient) was 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69) for (18)F-fluoroestradiol SUV and 0.65 (95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.73) for the (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG ratio. Some within-patient variation in PET measures (22%-44%) was attributable to interobserver variability as measured by the reader study. A subset of patients had mixed uptake, with widely disparate (18)F-fluoroestradiol SUV or (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG ratio for lesions in the same scan.
CONCLUSION: (18)F-fluoroestradiol uptake and the (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG ratio varied greatly between patients but were usually consistent across lesions in the same scan. The average (18)F-fluoroestradiol SUV and (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG ratio for a limited sample of lesions appear to provide a reasonable summary of synchronous ER expression for most patients. However, imaging the entire disease burden remains important to identify the subset of patients with mixed uptake, who may be at a critical point in their disease evolution.
METHODS: In 91 patients with a prior ER-positive biopsy, 505 lesions were analyzed for both (18)F-fluoroestradiol and (18)F-FDG uptake and the (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG uptake ratio. Standardized uptake values (SUVs) were recorded for up to 16 lesions per patient, of 1.5 cm or more and visible on (18)F-FDG PET or conventional staging. Linear mixed-effects regression models examined associations between PET parameters and patient or lesion characteristics and estimated variance components. A reader study of SUV measurements for 9 scans further examined sources of within-patient variability.
RESULTS: Average (18)F-fluoroestradiol uptake and (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG ratio varied greatly across these patients, despite a history of ER-positive disease: about 37% had low or absent (18)F-fluoroestradiol uptake even with marked (18)F-FDG uptake. (18)F-fluoroestradiol SUV and (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG ratio measurements within patients with multiple lesions were clustered around the patient's average value in most cases. Summarizing these findings, the intraclass correlation coefficient (proportion of total variation that is between-patient) was 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.69) for (18)F-fluoroestradiol SUV and 0.65 (95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.73) for the (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG ratio. Some within-patient variation in PET measures (22%-44%) was attributable to interobserver variability as measured by the reader study. A subset of patients had mixed uptake, with widely disparate (18)F-fluoroestradiol SUV or (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG ratio for lesions in the same scan.
CONCLUSION: (18)F-fluoroestradiol uptake and the (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG ratio varied greatly between patients but were usually consistent across lesions in the same scan. The average (18)F-fluoroestradiol SUV and (18)F-fluoroestradiol/(18)F-FDG ratio for a limited sample of lesions appear to provide a reasonable summary of synchronous ER expression for most patients. However, imaging the entire disease burden remains important to identify the subset of patients with mixed uptake, who may be at a critical point in their disease evolution.