Bullock, Catherine

Abstract Background: 18F-Fluoroestradiol (FES) positron emission tomography (PET) is approved for non-invasive detection of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer (BC) and recent updates to the National Comprehensive Cancer Center Network clinical practice guidelines include FES-PET for staging recurrent/metastatic ILC. Given the wide range of FES-PET indications, we retrospectively reviewed the management of ER+ BC patients after FES-PET at Mayo Clinic. Methods: We identified ER+ BC patients who underwent FES-PET from April 2021 to June 2025 across the Mayo Clinic. BC context at the time of FES-PET requisition was categorized as early (EBC), locally recurrent (LRBC), or metastatic (MBC). Management changes were classified as either affecting BC or non-BC care (not mutually exclusive). For pts who underwent 18F-flurodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET-CT and had a discrepant result with FES-PET, we assessed the clinical impact of these discrepancies. Finally, we examined the change in clinical management when FES-PET was ordered to investigate rising tumor markers CA 15-3 or CA 27.29. Results: 166 pts underwent ≥1 FES-PET scan. At diagnosis, 57% had invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), 33% invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), and 5.4% mixed histology. ER expression ≥ 50% was observed in 81.4% and 1.2% were HER2+. Overall, FES-PET led to a change in management in 54.5% (n=90) of pts with 43.0% (n=71) experiencing a change in BC care and 16.4% (n=27) in non-BC care. Changes in BC care occurred in 36% of EBC, 68% of LRBC, and 43.7% of MBC. The most common BC management changes after FES-PET were change in treatment strategy in 23.6% (n=39), additional BC-related imaging including further FES-PET scans in 23.0% (n=38), upstaging in 10.3% (n=17), change in surgical planning in 10.3% (n=17), local therapy in 4.2% (n=7), and biopsy avoidance in 3% (n=5). Surgical planning changes were mostly deciding to proceed with curative intent surgery (n=11), though some surgeries were aborted upon FES-PET upstaging (n=6). Non-BC management changes included additional imaging to evaluate incidental findings in 11.5% (n=19) and procedures in 6.7% (n=11), including 5 biopsies, 2 bronchoscopies, 2 endoscopies, 1 hysterectomy, and 1 cholecystectomy. FDG/FES discordancy was observed in 22.3% of the overall population (n=37). The most common pattern was FDG-/FES+ (n=19), leading to upstaging of BC in 8 and the sole use of FES-PET for future restaging in 13 BC patients. The second most common pattern was FDG+/FES- (n=18), attributed to non-BC related FDG uptake in 11 (false-positive FDG) or post-treatment ER loss in 7. Three FDG+/FES- patients were found to have additional cancers: two non-small cell lung cancers and one lymphoma. Non-malignant causes of false positive FDG were inflammation (n=3), silicone implants (n=1), thymic hyperplasia (n=1), and unknown (n=5). Six patients initially upstaged with FDG-PET imaging proceeded to curative-intent surgery after negative FES-PET confirmatory scans (FDG+/FES-). When FES-PET was ordered to investigate rising CA 15-3 or CA 27.29 tumor markers, this led to upstaging/progression in 3 of 21 cases (1 EBC, 2 MBC). The mean tumor marker increase was 57.0% in patients with upstaging/progression versus 19.0% in those without (p=0.02, two-tailed Student’s t-test). Conclusions: FES-PET altered clinical management in approximately half of BC cases in this study. Changes in BC-specific management were most frequent in LRBC, followed by MBC and EBC. One in six patients had a non-BC clinical management change after FES-PET. FDG/FES discordance provided value in upstaging FDG non-avid cancers and downstaging FDG-avid lesions unrelated to BC, influencing curative treatment decisions. FES-PET ordered for rising tumor markers rarely changed management, though larger tumor marker increases were associated with upstaging or progression. Citation Format: N. Wiest, K. Bullock, T. Pai, M. Kornas, B. McKinley, E. Parent, P. Advani. FES-PET imaging in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: implications for clinical management [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS1-06-16.

Abstract Background: Assessing invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) with standard-of-care (SOC) imaging, such as 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET-computed tomography (CT), is challenging. In May 2025, National Comprehensive Cancer Center Network guidelines added FES PET for recurrent/metastatic ILC staging. However, perceptions of the value added by FES PET to SOC imaging may vary, as only small ILC cohorts have been published. We evaluated FES PET’s clinical utility in the largest-studied cohort, to our knowledge, of ILC pts who have undergone FES PET. Methods: We identified all ILC pts who had an FES PET [PET-magnetic resonance (MR) or PET-CT)] between April 1, 2021, and May 1, 2025, at Mayo Clinic. Clinical and radiological data, including indications and management (mgmt) changes related to pts’ first FES PET, were obtained from clinical records. FES and SOC FDG PET were compared. Data were summarized with descriptive statistics. Results: 102 female pts were included: 88% White and 4.9% Black. Median age at initial breast cancer (BC) diagnosis was 57 (range, 36-79). At initial ILC diagnosis, most tumors were strongly estrogen receptor (ER) positive. Highest tumor grade was 1 in 25% of pts and 2 in 57%, with grade not documented in 19%; none had documented grade 3 ILC. Initial clinical prognostic stage was as follows: 26% stage 1, 21% stage 2, 10% stage 3, and 16% stage 4. At the time of FES PET, 37% had biopsy-confirmed metastatic ILC at the time of FES PET. The most common indications for FES PET were (re)staging ILC (49%), detecting suspected metastatic/recurrent BC (30%), and evaluating rising tumor markers like CA 15-3 or CA 27.29 (15%). 16% of pts were upstaged due to the FES PET result: 14 pts to stage 4 and 2 pts to stage 3. FES PET led to a mgmt change in 38 pts (37%), for whom the most common FES PET indications were (re)staging ILC (21 pts), detecting suspected recurrent/metastatic BC (11 pts), and detecting ER expression when biopsy was not feasible/nondiagnostic (7 pts). 19 scans (50%) led to a systemic therapy (tx) decision, 10 (26%) to a biopsy, 4 (11%) to additional imaging like MRI, 3 (8%) to locoregional tx, and 2 (5%) to a non-oncologic specialty referral to evaluate a suspected new metastasis. 11 pts had stage 4 BC pre-FES PET; their FES PET was ordered primarily for restaging (5 pts) or detecting ER expression (5 pts). Notably, of the 19 pts with a systemic tx-related change, 4 began a triple-negative BC regimen due to low FES uptake on the scan. Of the 15 pts who had FES PET to evaluate a rising tumor marker, a direct change in systemic tx occurred in 2 pts. 63/102 pts (62%) had FDG PET-CT prior to FES PET. Of these, 57% had discordant FDG and FES PET results. 39% had a higher number of avid metastatic lesions on FES PET as compared to FDG PET, primarily in the bone (8 pts) and lymph nodes (4 pts). 25% had bone, nodal, or soft tissue metastatic lesions that were FDG but not FES avid. 13 pts had FES PET-MRI; 9 of these had a prior FDG PET-CT. 2 PET-MRI pts had FES-avid metastatic lesions in unusual sites (brain, peritoneum) that were not FDG avid. Among the 38 pts with a mgmt change due to their FES PET result, 63% had prior FDG PET; 32% of the 38 pts had FES-avid metastatic lesions that were not seen on FDG PET, and 8% had FDG-avid but not FES-avid lesions. Conclusions: FES PET was useful for evaluating not only stage 4, but also early-stage ILC, with 1/3 of pts with an FES PET-driven mgmt change having early-stage BC. FES PET was most helpful for ILC (re)staging, detection of suspected recurrent/metastatic BC, and detection of ER expression when biopsy was not feasible/nondiagnostic. FES PET added clinically meaningful information beyond SOC imaging, with detection of FES-avid but not FDG-avid metastatic lesions in 1/3 of pts with an FES PET-driven mgmt change. Notably, FES PET-MRI demonstrated potential superiority over FDG PET in identifying atypical ILC metastases. Citation Format: T. Pai, C. Bullock, N. Wiest, E. Parent, P. Advani. Clinical utility of 18F-fluoroestradiol positron emission tomography (FES PET) in patients (pts) with lobular breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD9-09.

Breast pain is a common concern among women in primary care clinics. A rare cause of breast pain is Mondor’s disease (MD), which can present as an acute, painful, erythematous, cord-like induration on the breast or anterior chest wall. The disorder is caused by sclerosing superficial thrombophlebitis of the anterolateral thoracoabdominal wall veins. There does not appear to be a racial or ethnic propensity for this condition; however, it is important to understand that it may be more difficult to see in darker skin types (Fitzpatrick skin types IV-VI) and requires close attention on physical exam. The cause of MD is poorly understood but may be related to direct trauma, strenuous exercise, or hormone changes. We review a case of a 54-year-old woman who presented with an anterior chest wall palpable cord, better visualized with adequate lighting and skin traction, ultimately diagnosed as MD based on clinical findings and imaging studies. Mondor’s disease often resolves spontaneously with supportive care, as in this patient’s case; however, clinicians should be aware of this rare cause of breast pain and its association with hypercoagulable state, vasculitis, and breast cancer.