Literature DB >> 12195090

Comparison of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and "conventional diagnostic procedures" for the detection of distant metastases in breast cancer patients.

Jörg Dose1, C Bleckmann, S Bachmann, K H Bohuslavizki, J Berger, L Jenicke, C R Habermann, F Jãnicke.   

Abstract

The presence of distant metastases is the main prognostic factor in patients with breast cancer and has a significant influence in the choice of therapy. Therefore, chest X-ray, bone scintigraphy and ultrasound of the abdomen are performed to detect distant metastases at diagnosis and follow-up. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) has been shown to provide sensitive detection of primary tumour and metastases for many tumour entities, but little information is available about the diagnostic value for breast cancer patients. This study retrospectively compared FDG PET for detection of metastatic disease with chest X-ray, bone scintigraphy and ultrasound of the abdomen, referred to as "conventional diagnostic procedures" (CDPs), in 50 breast cancer patients. Imaging procedures were analysed in a blinded fashion with the results classified as "no evidence of metastases", "equivocal" and "evidence of metastases". Clinical follow-up and the results of other imaging modalities including computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging were used to determine if metastases were present. FDG PET identified metastatic disease with a sensitivity and specificity of 86% and 90% as compared to 36% and 95% for CDPs, respectively. Regarding "equivocal" and "evidence of metastases" as positive, the sensitivity of CDPs increased to 57% with a corresponding specificity of 81%, whereas sensitivity and specificity of FDG PET remained unchanged. Regarding different localities of metastases the sensitivity of FDG PET was superior in the detection of pulmonary metastases and especially of lymph node metastases of the mediastinum in comparison to chest X-ray, whereas the sensitivity of FDG PET in the detection of bone and liver metastases was of the same magnitude as compared with bone scintigraphy and ultrasound of the abdomen.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12195090     DOI: 10.1097/00006231-200209000-00009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nucl Med Commun        ISSN: 0143-3636            Impact factor:   1.690


  12 in total

1.  Bone scintigraphy: procedure guidelines for tumour imaging.

Authors:  Emilio Bombardieri; Cumali Aktolun; Richard P Baum; Angelika Bishof-Delaloye; John Buscombe; Jean François Chatal; Lorenzo Maffioli; Roy Moncayo; Luc Morteímans; Sven N Reske
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  [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

Review 3.  Advantages and limitations of FDG PET in the follow-up of breast cancer.

Authors:  Peter Lind; Isabel Igerc; Thomas Beyer; Peter Reinprecht; Klaus Hausegger
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-04-15       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  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 5.  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

Review 6.  FDG PET and tumour markers in the diagnosis of recurrent and metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  Wulf Siggelkow; Werner Rath; Udalrich Buell; Michael Zimny
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-05-14       Impact factor: 9.236

7.  Is the assessment of the central skeleton sufficient for osseous staging in breast cancer patients? A retrospective approach using bone scans.

Authors:  Julia Krammer; Dorothee Engel; Andreas Schnitzer; Clemens G Kaiser; Dietmar J Dinter; Joachim Brade; Stefan O Schoenberg; Klaus Wasser
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2013-01-04       Impact factor: 2.199

8.  [18F]FDG in recurrent breast cancer: diagnostic performances, clinical impact and relevance of induced changes in management.

Authors:  Dany Grahek; Françoise Montravers; Khaldoun Kerrou; Nicolas Aide; Jean-Pierre Lotz; Jean-Noël Talbot
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 9.236

9.  Breast cancer detection using high-resolution breast PET compared to whole-body PET or PET/CT.

Authors:  Judith E Kalinyak; Wendie A Berg; Kathy Schilling; Kathleen S Madsen; Deepa Narayanan; Marie Tartar
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-10-02       Impact factor: 9.236

10.  The EANM practice guidelines for bone scintigraphy.

Authors:  T Van den Wyngaert; K Strobel; W U Kampen; T Kuwert; W van der Bruggen; H K Mohan; G Gnanasegaran; R Delgado-Bolton; W A Weber; M Beheshti; W Langsteger; F Giammarile; F M Mottaghy; F Paycha
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-06-04       Impact factor: 9.236

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.