Figures & data
Table 1 Patients’ Characteristics at Baseline
Table 2 Analysis of Risk Factors Associated with PFS in the Whole Population
Table 3 Analysis of PET Parameters Associated with PFS in Patients with De novo Stage IV
Figure 1 Kaplan–Meier curve of progression-free survival for all patients stratified by SUVmax (A), SUVmean (B), MTV (C), TLG (D) and HI (E).
![Figure 1 Kaplan–Meier curve of progression-free survival for all patients stratified by SUVmax (A), SUVmean (B), MTV (C), TLG (D) and HI (E).](/cms/asset/56b19e60-9653-4de1-aee4-4cad2df09e6c/dijg_a_12167849_f0001_c.jpg)
Figure 2 Kaplan–Meier curve of progression-free survival for patients with De novo stage IV stratified by HI.
![Figure 2 Kaplan–Meier curve of progression-free survival for patients with De novo stage IV stratified by HI.](/cms/asset/02b44d27-286c-406d-960d-225f0291327f/dijg_a_12167849_f0002_c.jpg)
Table 4 Analysis of PET Parameters Associated with PFS in Patients with Different Molecular Subtypes
Figure 3 Kaplan–Meier curve of progression-free survival for HR+/HER2- patients stratified by HI.
![Figure 3 Kaplan–Meier curve of progression-free survival for HR+/HER2- patients stratified by HI.](/cms/asset/13d23f77-6246-4b75-ba58-0be5c85bb8cd/dijg_a_12167849_f0003_c.jpg)
Figure 4 Kaplan–Meier curve of progression-free survival for HER2+ patients stratified by HI.
![Figure 4 Kaplan–Meier curve of progression-free survival for HER2+ patients stratified by HI.](/cms/asset/245d18c2-7d58-4eb2-b67b-f721112bbfff/dijg_a_12167849_f0004_c.jpg)
Figure 5 Kaplan–Meier curve of progression-free survival for triple-negative patients stratified by SUVmax (A), MTV (B) and TLG (C).
![Figure 5 Kaplan–Meier curve of progression-free survival for triple-negative patients stratified by SUVmax (A), MTV (B) and TLG (C).](/cms/asset/ed186f4d-0d0a-472c-860d-cd311df0feb8/dijg_a_12167849_f0005_c.jpg)
Figure 6 Representative images. (A–E): A 31‐year‐old female patient with HR+/HER2- MBC underwent PET/CT scan (A, maximum intensity projection image). We detected that the first lumbar vertebra lesion had the highest 18F‐FDG uptake in all metastatic lesions (B, CT image; C, PET image, SUVmax were 5.43), whereas the right axillary lymph node lesion had the lowest uptake (D, CT image; E, PET image, minimum FDG uptake across all lesions = 3.58). Therefore, HI of this patient was 1.52, and she had a median PFS of 57.4 months. (F–J): A 30‐year‐old female patient with HR+/HER2- MBC underwent 18F‐FDG PET/CT scan (F, maximum intensity projection image). We detected that the chest wall lesion had the highest 18F‐FDG uptake in all metastatic lesions (G, CT image; H, PET image, SUVmax = 15.71), whereas right axillary lymph node lesion had the lowest uptake (I, CT image; J, PET image, minimum FDG uptake = 3.79); Therefore, HI of this patient was 4.15, and she had a PFS of 5.2 months.
![Figure 6 Representative images. (A–E): A 31‐year‐old female patient with HR+/HER2- MBC underwent PET/CT scan (A, maximum intensity projection image). We detected that the first lumbar vertebra lesion had the highest 18F‐FDG uptake in all metastatic lesions (B, CT image; C, PET image, SUVmax were 5.43), whereas the right axillary lymph node lesion had the lowest uptake (D, CT image; E, PET image, minimum FDG uptake across all lesions = 3.58). Therefore, HI of this patient was 1.52, and she had a median PFS of 57.4 months. (F–J): A 30‐year‐old female patient with HR+/HER2- MBC underwent 18F‐FDG PET/CT scan (F, maximum intensity projection image). We detected that the chest wall lesion had the highest 18F‐FDG uptake in all metastatic lesions (G, CT image; H, PET image, SUVmax = 15.71), whereas right axillary lymph node lesion had the lowest uptake (I, CT image; J, PET image, minimum FDG uptake = 3.79); Therefore, HI of this patient was 4.15, and she had a PFS of 5.2 months.](/cms/asset/5457860f-2cbd-4fdb-95ec-5f59e0a88e0b/dijg_a_12167849_f0006_b.jpg)