Literature DB >> 12750613

F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography in the diagnosis of tumor recurrence and metastases in the follow-up of patients with breast carcinoma: a comparison to conventional imaging.

Hans-Jürgen Gallowitsch1, Ewald Kresnik, Johann Gasser, Gerhild Kumnig, Isabel Igerc, Peter Mikosch, Peter Lind.   

Abstract

AIM: To evaluate the role of F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography (F-18 FDG PET) in the follow-up of breast carcinoma in case of clinical suspicion of local recurrence or distant metastases and/or tumor marker increase in correlation to conventional imaging.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the results of F-18 FDG PET (ECAT ART(R), Siemens CTI MS) of 62 patients (age 58.5 +/- 12.8) with surgically resected breast carcinoma (time interval after surgery, 86 +/- 82 months, mean follow-up 24 +/- 12.6 months). Patient- and lesion-based comparison with conventional imaging (CI) including mammography (MG), ultrasonography (US), computerized tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), radiography (XR) and bone scintigraphy (BS). Furthermore, we evaluated the influence on tumor stage and therapeutic strategy. A visual qualitative evaluation of lesions was performed.
RESULTS: On a patient base, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy for detecting local recurrence or distant metastases were calculated to be 97%, 82%, 87%, 96% and 90% compared with 84%, 60%, 73%, 75% and 74% with CI. On a lesion base, significantly more lymph node (84 vs. 23, P < 0.05) and fewer bone metastases (61 vs. 97, P < 0.05) could be detected by using F-18 FDG PET compared with CI. Sclerotic bone lesions were predominantly detected by BS. On the other hand, there were several patients with more FDG positive bone lesions and also mixed FDG positive/Tc-99m methylenediphosphonate (MDP) negative and FDG negative/Tc-99m MDP positive metastases. In case of normal tumor markers, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy for detecting local recurrence or distant metastases were calculated to be 100%, 85.0%, 78.6%, 100% and 90.3% for FDG PET and 80%, 50%, 50%, 80% and 61.5% for CI. An upstaging could be observed in 9.7% (6/62) and downstaging in 12.9% (8/62), leading to a change in therapeutic regimen in 13 patients (21%).
CONCLUSIONS: F-18 FDG PET demonstrates apparent advantages in the diagnosis of metastases in patients with breast carcinoma, compared with conventional imaging on a patient base. On a lesion base, significantly more lymph node and less bone metastases can be detected by using F-18 FDG PET compared with conventional imaging, including bone scintigraphy. In patients with clinical suspicion but negative tumor marker profile, too, F-18 FDG PET seems to be a reliable imaging tool for detection of tumor recurrence or metastases. Considering the high predictive value of F-18 FDG PET, tumor stage and therapeutic strategy will be reconsidered in several patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12750613     DOI: 10.1097/01.RLI.0000063983.86229.f2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Radiol        ISSN: 0020-9996            Impact factor:   6.016


  30 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.  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

3.  Prospective comparison of combined 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF PET/CT vs. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging for detection of malignancy.

Authors:  Frank I Lin; Jyotsna E Rao; Erik S Mittra; Kavitha Nallapareddy; Alka Chengapa; David W Dick; Sanjiv Sam Gambhir; Andrei Iagaru
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2011-11-08       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  Osteoblastic bone metastases in breast cancer: is not seeing believing?

Authors:  Ignac Fogelman
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 9.236

5.  FDG-PET and CT patterns of bone metastases and their relationship to previously administered anti-cancer therapy.

Authors:  Ora Israel; Anat Goldberg; Alicia Nachtigal; Daniela Militianu; Rachel Bar-Shalom; Zohar Keidar; Ignac Fogelman
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2006-06-22       Impact factor: 9.236

6.  Skeletal metastases: what is the future role for nuclear medicine?

Authors:  Gary J R Cook
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 7.  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

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

9.  FDG-PET and other imaging modalities for the evaluation of breast cancer recurrence and metastases: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  LingLing Pan; Yuan Han; XiaoGuang Sun; JianJun Liu; Huang Gang
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-01-21       Impact factor: 4.553

Review 10.  PET/CT in oncology: for which tumours is it the reference standard?

Authors:  Conor D Collins
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2007-10-01       Impact factor: 3.909

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.