The Diagnostic Accuracy of <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET and <sup>18</sup>F-FES PET for Staging Grade 1–2 Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer

Background According to current guidelines, staging of patients with locally advanced breast cancer and local-regional recurrent breast cancer is preferably performed with PET using 2-fluorine 18-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (<sup>18</sup>F-FDG). However, <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET might underperform in low-grade estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer. Alternatively, 16α-<sup>18</sup>F-fluoro-17β-estradiol (<sup>18</sup>F-FES) has emerged as a powerful tracer for in vivo visualization of ER-positive lesions. Purpose To assess whether <sup>18</sup>F-FES PET improves staging of grade 1 or 2 ER-positive breast cancer compared with <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET. Materials and Methods Patients with clinical stage II/III or local-regional recurrent, grade 1 or 2, ER-positive breast cancer were included between December 2018 and January 2021 in this prospective multicenter pilot study. All participants underwent an <sup>18</sup>F-FES PET examination in addition to standard staging with conventional imaging and <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET. Both PET scans were independently assessed. The disease stage was determined independently based on conventional imaging and <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET or <sup>18</sup>F-FES PET. Relevant lesions suspected of malignancy were verified histopathologically, after which a final stage was determined. Results A total of 41 female participants (median age, 56 years [IQR, 48-71 years]) with 44 breast tumors were included. Overall, 29 of 41 participants (71%) were correctly staged at <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET compared with 34 of 41 (83%) at <sup>18</sup>F-FES PET (<i>P</i> = .18). Seven of 10 and nine of 10 cases of lobular breast cancer were correctly staged at <sup>18</sup>F-FDG and <sup>18</sup>F-FES PET, respectively (70% vs 90%; <i>P</i> = .38) and seven of 12 and 11 of 12 cases of grade 1 tumors, respectively (58% vs 92%; <i>P</i> = .06). Regional lymph nodes were incorrectly staged at <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET in six of 44 cases (14%), whereas all cases were correctly staged at <sup>18</sup>F-FES PET (<i>P</i> = .02). Both imaging methods had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 59, 100) and a specificity of 91% (95% CI: 76, 98) for the detection of metastatic disease. Conclusion In this prospective pilot study, there was no evidence of a difference in diagnostic accuracy of <sup>18</sup>F-FES PET and <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET in staging patients with grade 1 or 2 ER-positive breast cancer. Clinical trial registration no. NCT03726931 Published under a CC BY 4.0 license <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i> See also the editorial by Fowler in this issue.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Radiology
Published
2025-03-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.241850
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.08

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Diagnostic Accuracy of 18F-FDG PET and 18F-FES PET for Staging Grade 1–2 Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer

Paola Perin, Albert D. Windhorst, Ellis Barbé, Emma C Bonjer et al.
3 citations
Radiology
Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
4.08
article

The Diagnostic Accuracy of 18F-FDG PET and 18F-FES PET for Staging Grade 1–2 Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer

Paola Perin, Albert D. Windhorst, Ellis Barbé, Emma C Bonjer, Sandra D. Bakker, Ronald Boellaard, Jaap J.M. Teunissen, Daniela E. Oprea‐Lager, Ramsha Iqbal, Lemonitsa H. Mammatas, Gwen M. P. Diepenhorst, Susanne van der Velde, Annette A. van Zweeden, Gerben J.C. Zwezerijnen, C. Willemien Menke‐van der Houven van Oordt, Laura J Schijf, Katya M. Duvivier, Jelijn J. Knip, Inge R. Konings, Noortje Schoenmakers
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Background According to current guidelines, staging of patients with locally advanced breast cancer and local-regional recurrent breast cancer is preferably performed with PET using 2-fluorine 18-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (<sup>18</sup>F-FDG). However, <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET might underperform in low-grade estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer. Alternatively, 16α-<sup>18</sup>F-fluoro-17β-estradiol (<sup>18</sup>F-FES) has emerged as a powerful tracer for in vivo visualization of ER-positive lesions. Purpose To assess whether <sup>18</sup>F-FES PET improves staging of grade 1 or 2 ER-positive breast cancer compared with <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET. Materials and Methods Patients with clinical stage II/III or local-regional recurrent, grade 1 or 2, ER-positive breast cancer were included between December 2018 and January 2021 in this prospective multicenter pilot study. All participants underwent an <sup>18</sup>F-FES PET examination in addition to standard staging with conventional imaging and <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET. Both PET scans were independently assessed. The disease stage was determined independently based on conventional imaging and <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET or <sup>18</sup>F-FES PET. Relevant lesions suspected of malignancy were verified histopathologically, after which a final stage was determined. Results A total of 41 female participants (median age, 56 years [IQR, 48-71 years]) with 44 breast tumors were included. Overall, 29 of 41 participants (71%) were correctly staged at <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET compared with 34 of 41 (83%) at <sup>18</sup>F-FES PET (<i>P</i> = .18). Seven of 10 and nine of 10 cases of lobular breast cancer were correctly staged at <sup>18</sup>F-FDG and <sup>18</sup>F-FES PET, respectively (70% vs 90%; <i>P</i> = .38) and seven of 12 and 11 of 12 cases of grade 1 tumors, respectively (58% vs 92%; <i>P</i> = .06). Regional lymph nodes were incorrectly staged at <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET in six of 44 cases (14%), whereas all cases were correctly staged at <sup>18</sup>F-FES PET (<i>P</i> = .02). Both imaging methods had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 59, 100) and a specificity of 91% (95% CI: 76, 98) for the detection of metastatic disease. Conclusion In this prospective pilot study, there was no evidence of a difference in diagnostic accuracy of <sup>18</sup>F-FES PET and <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET in staging patients with grade 1 or 2 ER-positive breast cancer. Clinical trial registration no. NCT03726931 Published under a CC BY 4.0 license <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i> See also the editorial by Fowler in this issue.

RadiologyVol. 314(3)
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Pfizer, Astellas Pharma, Cancer Center Amsterdam
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
4.08
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.