Literature DB >> 11884491

Whole-body (18)F-FDG PET and conventional imaging for predicting outcome in previously treated breast cancer patients.

Duska Vranjesevic1, Jean Emmanuel Filmont, Joubin Meta, Daniel H Silverman, Michael E Phelps, Jyotsna Rao, Peter E Valk, Johannes Czernin.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: This study was conducted to determine the ability of (18)F-FDG PET and conventional imaging (CI) to predict the outcomes in breast cancer patients who have previously undergone primary treatment.
METHODS: The study population consisted of 61 female patients (median age, 54 y; range, 32--91 y) who were reevaluated with (18)F-FDG PET and CI after treatment. The median interval between the last treatment and PET was 0.4 y (range, 0--16 y). PET was performed within 3 mo of CI (median interval, 25 d; range, 2--84 d). To determine the independent impact of PET on outcome, PET images were reinterpreted in a blind fashion. Availability of clinical information after PET scanning (21 plus minus 12 mo) was required for study inclusion. Study endpoints were clinical evidence of progression of disease or death.
RESULTS: Of 61 patients, 19 (31.1%) had no clinical evidence and 38 (62.3%) had evidence of residual or recurrent disease by the end of follow-up. Four patients (6.6%) had died. The positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively) of PET were 93% and 84%, respectively. CI yielded a PPV of 85% and an NPV of 59%. The prognostic accuracy of single whole-body PET was superior to that of multiple procedures with CI (90% vs. 75%; P < 0.05). Kaplan--Meier estimates of disease-free survival in patients with negative PET findings compared with those with positive PET findings revealed a significant difference between the 2 curves (log-rank test = 0.001). Kaplan--Meier estimates of disease-free survival stratified by CI results showed a marginally significant difference between CI-positive and CI-negative patients (log-rank test = 0.04).
CONCLUSION: FDG PET can be used to improve prediction of the clinical outcome of previously treated breast cancer patients relative to what is achievable through CI alone.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11884491

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  25 in total

Review 1.  FDG-PET in monitoring therapy of breast cancer.

Authors:  H-J Biersack; H Bender; H Palmedo
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-04-27       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Rectal metastasis from infiltrating lobular breast carcinoma: imaging with 18F-FDG PET.

Authors:  Borislav Laoutliev; Henrik Harling; Kirsten Neergaard; Lene Simonsen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-09-22       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  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

4.  The Medical Case for a Positron Emission Tomography and X-ray Computed Tomography Combined Service in Oman.

Authors:  Naima K Al-Bulushi; Dale Bailey; Giuliano Mariani
Journal:  Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J       Date:  2013-11-08

5.  What are the Best Ways to Reduce the False-positive Rate of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Patients with Breast Cancer?

Authors:  Laura Evangelista; Zora Baretta; Lorenzo Vinante; Guido Sotti
Journal:  Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2011-01-05

6.  Comparison of diffuse optical tomography of human breast with whole-body and breast-only positron emission tomography.

Authors:  Soren D Konecky; Regine Choe; Alper Corlu; Kijoon Lee; Rony Wiener; Shyam M Srinivas; Janet R Saffer; Richard Freifelder; Joel S Karp; Nassim Hajjioui; Fred Azar; Arjun G Yodh
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Amide proton transfer imaging of the breast at 3 T: establishing reproducibility and possible feasibility assessing chemotherapy response.

Authors:  Adrienne N Dula; Lori R Arlinghaus; Richard D Dortch; Blake E Dewey; Jennifer G Whisenant; Gregory D Ayers; Thomas E Yankeelov; Seth A Smith
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2012-08-20       Impact factor: 4.668

8.  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 9.  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

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.