A role of FDG-PET/CT for response evaluation in metastatic breast cancer?

Abstract

Breast cancer prognosis is steadily improving due to early detection of primary cancer in screening programs and revolutionizing treatment development. In the metastatic setting, therapy improvements render breast cancer a chronic disease. Although FDG-PET/CT has emerged as a highly accurate method for staging metastatic breast cancer, there has been no change in response evaluation methods for decades. FDG-PET/CT has proven high prognostic values in patients with metastatic breast cancer when using quantitative PET methods. It has also shown a higher predictive value than conventional CT when applying the respective response evaluation criteria, RECIST and PERCIST. Response categorization using FDG-PET/CT is more sensitive in detecting progressive and regressive disease, while conventional imaging such as CT and bone scintigraphy deem stable disease more often. These findings reflect the higher accuracy of FDG-PET/CT for response evaluation in this patient group. But does the higher accuracy of FDG-PET/CT translate into a patient benefit when implementing it for monitoring response to palliative treatment? We have evidence of survival benefit from a retrospective study indicating the superiority of using FDG-PET/CT compared with conventional imaging for response evaluation in metastatic breast cancer patients. The survival benefit seems to result from earlier detection of progression with FDG-PET/CT than conventional imaging, leading to an earlier change in treatment with potentially better efficacy of the subsequent treatment line. FDG-PET/CT can be used semiquantitatively as suggested in PERCIST. However, we still need to improve clinically applicable methods based on neural network modeling to better integrate the quantitative information in a smart and standardized way, enabling relevant comparability between scans, patients, and institutions. Such innovation is warranted to support imaging specialists in diagnostic response assessment. Prospective multicenter studies analyzing patients' survival, quality of life, societal and patient costs of replacing conventional imaging with FDG-PET/CT are needed before firm conclusions can be drawn on which type of scan to recommend in future clinical guidelines.