Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 11, 2026
Gene Regulation and Targeted Therapy in Gastric Cancer Peritoneal Metastasis: Radiological Findings from Dual Energy CT and PET/CT
Published on: January 22, 2018
Molecular subtypes of breast cancer: metabolic correlation with ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT
Ana María García Vicente1, Ángel Soriano Castrejón, Alberto León Martín
1Nuclear Medicine Department, University General Hospital, C/ Obispo Rafael Torija s/n, 13005, Ciudad Real, Spain. angarvice@yahoo.es
Purpose:
To determine whether the metabolic features of breast tumours differ among molecular subtypes.
Methods:
This prospective study included 168 women diagnosed with locally advanced breast cancer. PET/CT was requested in the initial staging before neoadjuvant treatment (multicentre study, FISCAM grant). All patients underwent an ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT scan with a dual time-point acquisition. Both examinations (PET-1 and PET-2) were evaluated qualitatively and semiquantitatively with calculation of SUVmax (SUV-1 and SUV-2, respectively), and the percentage variation in the SUVs and retention indexes (RI) between PET-1 and PET-2 in the breast tumour were calculated. Biological prognostic parameters, including the steroid receptor status, HER-2 expression, proliferation rate (Ki-67) and grading, were determined from primary tumour tissue. Tumour subtypes were classified following the recommendations of the 12th International Breast Conference, by immunohistochemical surrogates as luminal A, luminal B-HER2(-), luminal B-HER2(+), HER2(+) or basal. Metabolic semiquantitative parameters and molecular subtypes were correlated.
Results:
Of the 168 tumours, 151 were classified: 16 were luminal A, 53 were luminal B-HER2(-), 29 were luminal B-HER2(+), 18 were HER2(+) and 35 were basal. There were significant differences between SUV-1 and SUV-2 and the different subtypes, with higher SUVs in HER2(+) and basal tumours. No significant differences were found with respect to RI.
Conclusion:
Semiquantitative metabolic parameters showed statistically significant differences among the molecular subtypes of the tumours evaluated. Therefore, there seems to be a relationship between molecular and glycolytic phenotypes.
