| Objective:1. Analysis the correlation between SUVmax,⊿SUVmax1%,⊿SUVmax2%, the expression of ER, PR, HER-2, Ki-67, p53, EGFR, GST-π, TOPO IIα and the pathological reaction of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer,explore the factors of predicting pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapyin breast cancer.2. Investigate the correlation between different T staging of breast cancer and thepathologic response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.3. Compare the statistical difference between SUVmax,⊿SUVmax1%、⊿SUVmax2%and expression of different molecular biological markers in breast cancer,explore the intrinsic link between FDG uptake and molecular biological markers.4. Preliminary study the comparison of pathologic response to neoadjuvantchemotherapy, pCR rates, SUVmax of different molecular subtypes of breast cancer.5. Preliminary study the predictors of neoadjuvant chemotherapy efficacy inpatients with triple-negative breast cancer.Methods:1.18F-FDG PET-CT was performed before neoadjuvant chemotherapyand after the first and the second course of treatment, measure the SUVmaxeverytimeand calculate the rate of change. According to Miller and Payne grading system, grade3,4,5were categorized as pathology effective group, grade1,2were categorized as pathology ineffective group, and calculate pCR rate, explore the correlation ofSUVmax,⊿SUVmax1%,⊿SUVmax2%, the expression of ER, PR, HER-2, Ki-67, p53,EGFR, GST-π, TOPO IIα between pathological effective group and ineffectivegroup or achieved pCR group and did not achieve pCR.2. Compare SUVmax,⊿SUVmax1%,⊿SUVmax2%with the expression of ER, PR,HER-2, Ki-67, p53, EGFR, GST-π, TOPO IIα.3. Comparison of different T staging of breast cancer with pathological effectivegroup, ineffective group, achieved pCR group and did not achieve pCR.4. Compare pathological efficient rate and pCR rate of different molecularsubtypes, and the SUVmaxin different molecular subtybes.5. In triple negative breast cancer, compare SUVmax, Ki-67, p53, EGFR ofpathological effective group with ineffective group, achieved pCR group with did notachieve pCR.Results:1.⊿SUVmax1%,⊿SUVmax2%in pathological effective group wassignificantly higher than in pathological ineffective group(p﹤0.001). There was nostatistically difference between SUVmaxin pathological effective group and ineffectivegroup(p﹥0.05).2. There was no association about pathological effective rate, pathologicalineffective rate between the positive expression group of molecular biologicalmarkers ER, PR, HER-2, Ki-67, p53, EGFR, GST-π, TOPO IIα and the negativeexpression group(p﹥0.05).3. There was no statistically difference between different T staging inpathological effective group and in pathological ineffective group(p﹥0.05).4.⊿SUVmax2%in achieved pCR group was higher than did not achieved pCRgroup(p﹤0.05). There was no statistically difference between SUVmax,⊿SUVmax1%in achieved pCR group and did not achieved pCR group(p﹥0.05).5. The pCR rate of PR negative group was higher than PR positive group(p﹤0.05). There was no statistically difference between the pCR rate of ER, HER-2,Ki-67, p53, EGFR, GST-π, TOPO IIα positive group and negative group(p﹥0.05).6. There was no statistically difference between different T staging in achievedpCR group and in did not achieved pCR group(p﹥0.05). 7. SUVmaxin ER negative group was significantly higher than ER positivegroup(p﹤0.001). There was no statistically difference between⊿SUVmax1%,⊿SUVmax2%in ER negative group and in ER positive group(p﹥0.05).8. SUVmaxin PR negative group was significantly higher than PR positivegroup(p﹤0.01).⊿SUVmax2%in PR negative group was higher than PR positivegroup(p﹤0.05). There was no statistically difference between⊿SUVmax1%in PRnegative group and in PR positive group(p﹥0.05).9. SUVmax,⊿SUVmax2%in Ki-67positive group was higher than Ki-67negative group(p﹤0.05). There was no statistically difference between⊿SUVmax1%in Ki-67negative group and in Ki-67positive group(p﹥0.05).10.⊿SUVmax2%in GST-π positive group was significantly higher thannegative group(p﹤0.01). There was no statistically difference between SUVmax,⊿SUVmax1%in GST-π negative group and in GST-π positive group(p﹥0.05).11. SUVmax,⊿SUVmax2%in TOPO IIα positive group was higher than TOPOIIα negative group(p﹤0.05). There was no statistically difference between⊿SUVmax1%in TOPO IIα negative group and TOPO IIα positive group(p﹥0.05).12. There was no statistically difference between SUVmax,⊿SUVmax1%,⊿SUVmax2%in HER-2, p53, EGFR negative group and positive group(p﹥0.05).13. In different breast cancer subtybes, Basal-like breast cancer could achievedthe highest pathological effective rate(70%) and the pCR rate(33%).14. The SUVmaxof HER-2overexpression and Basal-like breast cancer was thehighest, SUVmaxof Luminal A breast cancer was the lowest.15. In triple negative breast cancer, there was no statistically difference betweenSUVmaxin pathological effective group and pathological ineffective group(p﹥0.05).There was no statistically difference between SUVmaxin achieved pCR group and didnot achieved pCR group(p﹥0.05).16. In triple negative breast cancer, there was no statistically difference betweenpathological effective rate in Ki-67, p53, EGFR positive group and the negativegroup(p﹥0.05). There was no statistically difference between pCR rate in Ki-67, p53,EGFR positive group and the negative group(p﹥0.05).Conclusion:1.⊿SUVmax1%,⊿SUVmax2%can predict the predict the pathological efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer, and⊿SUVmax2%can predict pCR.2. The pCR rate in PR negative group was higher than PR positive group. Therewas no statistically difference between pCR rate in different expression of ER, HER-2,Ki-67, p53, EGFR, GST-π, TOPO IIα.3. SUVmaxof ER, PR negative patients was higher than ER, PR positive patients.⊿SUVmax2%in PR negative patients was higher than PR positive patients, it meansPR negative patients are more sensitive to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.4. SUVmaxof Ki-67positive group was higher than Ki-67negative group,suggesting SUVmaxmay reflect the proliferation of tumor. Ki-67positive patients hada higher⊿SUVmax2%, it means Ki-67positive patients are more sensitive toneoadjuvant chemotherapy.5. SUVmaxcan’t predict the pathological efficacy and pCR of neoadjuvantchemotherapy in breast cancer.6. There was no statistically difference between different molecular biologicalmarkers and pathological effective group and ineffective group.7. T staging can’t predict the pathological efficacy and pCR of neoadjuvantchemotherapy in breast cancer.8. Basal-like breast cancer could achieved the highest pathological effectiverate(70%) and the pCR rate(33%).9. The SUVmaxof HER-2overexpression and Basal-like breast cancer was thehighest, SUVmaxof Luminal A breast cancer was the lowest.10. SUVmax, different expression of Ki-67, p53, EGFR can’t predict thepathological efficacy and pCR of triple-negative breast cancer with neoadjuvantchemotherapy. |
PDF Full Text Request