Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:7–30.
Cancer Genome Atlas N. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2012;490:61–70.
Gnant M, Thomssen C, Harbeck N. St. Gallen/Vienna 2015: A Brief Summary of the Consensus Discussion. Breast Care (Basel). 2015;10:124–30.
Prat A, Parker JS, Fan C, Perou CM. PAM50 assay and the three-gene model for identifying the major and clinically relevant molecular subtypes of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;135:301–6.
Russnes HG, Lingjaerde OC, Borresen-Dale AL, Caldas C. Breast Cancer Molecular Stratification: From Intrinsic Subtypes to Integrative Clusters. Am J Pathol. 2017;187:2152–62.
Bachman KE, Argani P, Samuels Y, Silliman N, Ptak J, Szabo S, et al. The PIK3CA gene is mutated with high frequency in human breast cancers. Cancer Biol Ther. 2004;3:772–5.
Kanu N, Cerone MA, Goh G, Zalmas LP, Bartkova J, Dietzen M, et al. DNA replication stress mediates APOBEC3 family mutagenesis in breast cancer. Genome Biol. 2016;17:185.
Turner NC, Reis-Filho JS, Russell AM, Springall RJ, Ryder K, Steele D, et al. BRCA1 dysfunction in sporadic basal-like breast cancer. Oncogene. 2007;26:2126–32.
Prat A, Cheang MC, Martin M, Parker JS, Carrasco E, Caballero R, et al. Prognostic significance of progesterone receptor-positive tumor cells within immunohistochemically defined luminal A breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:203–9.
Bastien RR, Rodriguez-Lescure A, Ebbert MT, Prat A, Munarriz B, Rowe L, et al. PAM50 breast cancer subtyping by RT-qPCR and concordance with standard clinical molecular markers. BMC Med Genomics. 2012;5:44.
Prat A, Carey LA, Adamo B, Vidal M, Tabernero J, Cortes J, et al. Molecular features and survival outcomes of the intrinsic subtypes within HER2-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju152.
De Cicco C, Gilardi L, Botteri E, Fracassi SL, Di Dia GA, Botta F, et al. Is [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose uptake by the primary tumor a prognostic factor in breast cancer? Breast. 2013;22:39–43.
Osborne JR, Port E, Gonen M, Doane A, Yeung H, Gerald W, et al. 18F-FDG PET of locally invasive breast cancer and association of estrogen receptor status with standardized uptake value: microarray and immunohistochemical analysis. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:543–50.
Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Moretti JL, Porcher R, Espie M, Lehmann-Che J, et al. Correlation of high 18F-FDG uptake to clinical, pathological and biological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:426–35.
Koolen BB, Vrancken Peeters MJ, Wesseling J, Lips EH, Vogel WV, Aukema TS, et al. Association of primary tumour FDG uptake with clinical, histopathological and molecular characteristics in breast cancer patients scheduled for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1830–8.
Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badve S, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer (unabridged version). Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134:e48–72.
Mclnnes L, Healy J, Melville J. UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation andProjection for Dimension Reduction. arXiv:1802.03426.
First PI3K. Inhibitor for Breast Cancer. JAMA. 2019;322:19.
Verret B, Cortes J, Bachelot T, Andre F, Arnedos M. Efficacy of PI3K inhibitors in advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:x12–20.
Bendell JC, Rodon J, Burris HA, de Jonge M, Verweij J, Birle D, et al. Phase I, dose-escalation study of BKM120, an oral pan-Class I PI3K inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:282–90.
Hopkins BD, Pauli C, Du X, Wang DG, Li X, Wu D, et al. Suppression of insulin feedback enhances the efficacy of PI3K inhibitors. Nature. 2018;560:499–503.
Maynard J, Emmas SA, Ble FX, Barjat H, Lawrie E, Hancox U, et al. The use of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ((18)F-FDG PET) as a pathway-specific biomarker with AZD8186, a PI3Kbeta/delta inhibitor. EJNMMI Res. 2016;6:62.
Patnaik A, Appleman LJ, Tolcher AW, Papadopoulos KP, Beeram M, Rasco DW, et al. First-in-human phase I study of copanlisib (BAY 80-6946), an intravenous pan-class I phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:1928–40.
Dowsett M, Nielsen TO, A’Hern R, Bartlett J, Coombes RC, Cuzick J, et al. Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer working group. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1656–64.
Koo HR, Park JS, Kang KW, Cho N, Chang JM, Bae MS, et al. 18F-FDG uptake in breast cancer correlates with immunohistochemically defined subtypes. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:610–8.
Abd El-Rehim DM, Pinder SE, Paish CE, Bell J, Blamey RW, Robertson JF, et al. Expression of luminal and basal cytokeratins in human breast carcinoma. J Pathol. 2004;203:661–71.
Shao MM, Chan SK, Yu AM, Lam CC, Tsang JY, Lui PC, et al. Keratin expression in breast cancers. Virchows Arch. 2012;461:313–22.
Foulkes WD, Smith IE, Reis-Filho JS. Triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1938–48.
Shapira I, Lee A, Vora R, Budman DR. P53 mutations in triple negative breast cancer upregulate endosomal recycling of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) increasing its oncogenic potency. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2013;88:284–92.
Yallowitz AR, Li D, Lobko A, Mott D, Nemajerova A, Marchenko N. Mutant p53 Amplifies Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Family Signaling to Promote Mammary Tumorigenesis. Mol Cancer Res. 2015;13:743–54.
Magne N, Fischel JL, Dubreuil A, Formento P, Poupon MF, Laurent-Puig P, et al. Influence of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), p53 and intrinsic MAP kinase pathway status of tumour cells on the antiproliferative effect of ZD1839 (“Iressa”). Br J Cancer. 2002;86:1518–23.
Mineta H, Borg A, Dictor M, Wahlberg P, Akervall J, Wennerberg J. p53 mutation, but not p53 overexpression, correlates with survival in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 1998;78:1084–90.
Kruiswijk F, Labuschagne CF, Vousden KH. p53 in survival, death and metabolic health: a lifeguard with a licence to kill. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2015;16:393–405.
Wahl RL, Zasadny K, Helvie M, Hutchins GD, Weber B, Cody R. Metabolic monitoring of breast cancer chemohormonotherapy using positron emission tomography: initial evaluation. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:2101–11.
Avril N, Sassen S, Roylance R. Response to therapy in breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):55S–63S.
Emmering J, Krak NC, Van der Hoeven JJ, Spreeuwenberg MD, Twisk JW, Meijer S, et al. Preoperative [18F] FDG-PET after chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer: prognostic value as compared with histopathology. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:1573–7.
Vranjesevic D, Filmont JE, Meta J, Silverman DH, Phelps ME, Rao J, et al. Whole-body (18)F-FDG PET and conventional imaging for predicting outcome in previously treated breast cancer patients. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:325–9.
De Giorgi U, Valero V, Rohren E, Dawood S, Ueno NT, Miller MC, et al. Circulating tumor cells and [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for outcome prediction in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3303–11.
Aogi K, Kadoya T, Sugawara Y, Kiyoto S, Shigematsu H, Masumoto N, et al. Utility of (18)F FDG-PET/CT for predicting prognosis of luminal-type breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;150:209–17.
Zhang J, Jia Z, Ragaz J, Zhang YJ, Zhou M, Zhang YP, et al. The maximum standardized uptake value of 18 F-FDG PET scan to determine prognosis of hormone-receptor positive metastatic breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:42.
Everaert H, Vanhove C, Lahoutte T, Muylle K, Caveliers V, Bossuyt A, et al. Optimal dose of 18F-FDG required for whole-body PET using an LSO PET camera. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:1615–9.
Masuda Y, Kondo C, Matsuo Y, Uetani M, Kusakabe K. Comparison of imaging protocols for 18F-FDG PET/CT in overweight patients: optimizing scan duration versus administered dose. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:844–8.
Boellaard R. Need for standardization of 18F-FDG PET/CT for treatment response assessments. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(Suppl 2):93S–100S.
de Groot EH, Post N, Boellaard R, Wagenaar NR, Willemsen AT, van Dalen JA. Optimized dose regimen for whole-body FDG-PET imaging. EJNMMI Res. 2013;3:63.
Dai KS, Tai DY, Ho P, Chen CC, Peng WC, Chen ST, et al. Accuracy of the EasyTouch blood glucose self-monitoring system: a study of 516 cases. Clin Chim Acta. 2004;349:135–41.
Kinahan PE, Perlman ES, Sunderland JJ, Subramaniam R, Wollenweber SD, Turkington TG, et al. The QIBA Profile for FDG PET/CT as an Imaging Biomarker Measuring Response to Cancer Therapy. Radiology. 2020;294:647–57.
Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:932–45.
Chung HH, Kwon HW, Kang KW, Park NH, Song YS, Chung JK, et al. Prognostic Value of Preoperative Metabolic Tumor Volume and Total Lesion Glycolysis in Patients with Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:1966–72.
Zhang H, Wroblewski K, Liao S, Kampalath R, Penny BC, Zhang Y, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor burden from (18)F-FDG PET in surgical patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Acad Radiol. 2013;20:32–40.
An YS, Kang DK, Jung Y, Kim TH. Volume-based metabolic parameter of breast cancer on preoperative 18F-FDG PET/CT could predict axillary lymph node metastasis. Medicine(Baltimore). 2017;96:e8557.
Marinelli B, Espinet-Col C, Ulaner GA, McArthur HL, Gonen M, Jochelson M, et al. Prognostic value of FDG PET/CT-based metabolic tumor volumes in metastatic triple negative breast cancer patients. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;6:120–7.
Son SH, Lee SW, Jeong SY, Song BI, Chae YS, Ahn BC, et al. Whole-Body Metabolic Tumor Volume, as Determined by (18)F-FDG PET/CT, as a Prognostic Factor of Outcome for Patients With Breast Cancer Who Have Distant Metastasis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;205;878 – 85.
Wen W, Xuan D, Hu Y, Li X, Liu L, Xu D. Prognostic value of maximum standard uptake value, metabolic tumor volume, and total lesion glycolysis of positron emission tomography/computed tomography in patients with breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0225959.
Mankoff DA, Tewson TJ, Eary JF. Analysis of blood clearance and labeled metabolites for the estrogen receptor tracer [F-18]-16 alpha-fluoroestradiol (FES). Nucl Med Biol. 1997;24:341–8.
Seimbille Y, Rousseau J, Benard F, Morin C, Ali H, Avvakumov G, et al. 18F-labeled difluoroestradiols: preparation and preclinical evaluation as estrogen receptor-binding radiopharmaceuticals. Steroids. 2002;67:765–75.
Linden HM, Stekhova SA, Link JM, Gralow JR, Livingston RB, Ellis GK, et al. Quantitative fluoroestradiol positron emission tomography imaging predicts response to endocrine treatment in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2793–9.
Mortimer JE, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Trinkaus K, Katzenellenbogen JA, Welch MJ. Metabolic flare: indicator of hormone responsiveness in advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:2797–803.
Henry KE, Ulaner GA, Lewis JS. Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Targeted PET/Single- Photon Emission Computed Tomography Imaging of Breast Cancer: Noninvasive Measurement of a Biomarker Integral to Tumor Treatment and Prognosis. PET Clin. 2017;12:269–88.
Adejolu M, Huo L, Rohren E, Santiago L, Yang WT. False-positive lesions mimicking breast cancer on FDG PET and PET/CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198:W304-14.
Dong A, Wang Y, Lu J, Zuo C. Spectrum of the Breast Lesions With Increased 18F-FDG Uptake on PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2016;41:543–57.
Rosen EL, Turkington TG, Soo MS, Baker JA, Coleman RE. Detection of primary breast carcinoma with a dedicated, large-field-of-view FDG PET mammography device: initial experience. Radiology. 2005;234:527–34.
Berg WA, Weinberg IN, Narayanan D, Lobrano ME, Ross E, Amodei L, et al. High-Resolution Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography with Compression (“Positron Emission Mammography”) is Highly Accurate in Depicting Primary Breast Cancer. Breast J. 2006;12:309–23.
Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:328–54.
Marquart J, Chen EY, Prasad V. Estimation of the Percentage of US Patients With Cancer Who Benefit From Genome-Driven Oncology. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4:1093–8.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.