Literature DB >> 11315604

Fluorine-18 2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose PET in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison with the standard staging procedures.

H Schirrmeister1, T Kühn, A Guhlmann, C Santjohanser, T Hörster, K Nüssle, K Koretz, G Glatting, A Rieber, R Kreienberg, A C Buck, S N Reske.   

Abstract

The present study compared the diagnostic accuracy of fluorine-18 2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) with conventional staging techniques. The differentiation between malignant and benign lesions and the detection of multifocal disease, axillary and internal lymph node involvement, and distant metastases were evaluated. One hundred and seventeen female patients were prospectively examined using FDG-PET and conventional staging methods such as chest X-ray, ultrasonography of the breast and liver, mammography and bone scintigraphy. All patients were examined on a modern full-ring PET scanner. Histopathological analysis of resected specimens was employed as the reference method. The readers of FDG-PET were blinded to the results of the other imaging methods and to the site of the breast tumour. The sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET in detecting malignant breast lesions were 93% and 75% respectively. FDG-PET was twofold more sensitive (sensitivity 63%, specificity 95%) in detecting multifocal lesions than the combination of mammography and ultrasonography (sensitivity 32%, specificity 93%). Sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET in detecting axillary lymph node metastases were 79% and 92% (41% and 96% for clinical evaluation). FDG-PET correctly indicated distant metastases in seven patients. False-positive or false-negative findings were not encountered with FDG-PET. Chest X-ray was false-negative in three of five patients with lung metastases. Bone scintigraphy was false-positive in four patients. Three patients were upstaged since FDG-PET detected distant metastases missed with the standard staging procedure. It is concluded that, compared with the imaging methods currently employed for initial staging, FDG-PET is as accurate in interpreting the primary tumour and more accurate in screening for lymph node metastases and distant metastases. Due to a false-negative rate of 20% in detecting axillary lymph node metastases, FDG-PET cannot replace histological evaluation of axillary status.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11315604     DOI: 10.1007/s002590000448

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0340-6997


  35 in total

1.  [Non-invasive imaging modalities for preoperative axillary lymph node staging in patients with breast cancer].

Authors:  K Wasser; A Schnitzer; J Brade; S O Schoenberg
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 0.635

2.  Semiquantitative analysis of maximum standardized uptake values of regional lymph nodes in inflammatory breast cancer: is there a reliable threshold for differentiating benign from malignant?

Authors:  Selin Carkaci; Beatriz E Adrada; Eric Rohren; Wei Wei; Mohammad A Quraishi; Osama Mawlawi; Thomas A Buchholz; Wei Yang
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 3.  Positron emission tomography for benign and malignant disease.

Authors:  Anthony Visioni; Julian Kim
Journal:  Surg Clin North Am       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 2.741

Review 4.  Current and future use of positron emission tomography (PET) in breast cancer.

Authors:  David A Mankoff; William B Eubank
Journal:  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.673

5.  Molecular Imaging in Breast Cancer - Potential Future Aspects.

Authors:  Katja Pinker; Wolfgang Bogner; Stephan Gruber; Peter Brader; Siegfried Trattnig; Georgios Karanikas; Thomas H Helbich
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2011-04-29       Impact factor: 2.860

6.  Dual-time-point [18F]-FDG PET/CT in the diagnostic evaluation of suspicious breast lesions.

Authors:  M G Caprio; A Cangiano; M Imbriaco; F Soscia; G Di Martino; A Farina; G Avitabile; L Pace; P Forestieri; M Salvatore
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2009-12-16       Impact factor: 3.469

7.  Impact of FDG PET on the preoperative staging of newly diagnosed breast cancer.

Authors:  Tevfik F Cermik; Ayse Mavi; Sandip Basu; Abass Alavi
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2007-10-24       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 8.  The role of positron emission tomographic imaging in breast cancer.

Authors:  Michelle D McDonough; Elizabeth R DePeri; Betty A Mincey
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.075

9.  Regulation of the Warburg effect in early-passage breast cancer cells.

Authors:  Ian F Robey; Renu M Stephen; Kathy S Brown; Brenda K Baggett; Robert A Gatenby; Robert J Gillies
Journal:  Neoplasia       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 5.715

Review 10.  A systematic review of FDG-PET in breast cancer.

Authors:  S Escalona; J A Blasco; M M Reza; E Andradas; N Gómez
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2009-03-11       Impact factor: 3.064

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.