English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background  To compare the value of interim  18 F-FLT-PET and  18 F-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  18 F-FLT and  18 F-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  18 F-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  18 F-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  18 F-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  18 F-FLT-PET were not significant.    Conclusions   18 F-FLT-PET failed to show an advantage over  18 F-FDG-PET in predicting the treatment response and survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Assessment of treatment outcome by interim  18 F-FDG-PET may aid treatment.    Trial registration  The study was retrospectively registered on 02/06/2020 on  Clinicaltrials.gov  (identifier  NCT04411966 ).

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