PURPOSE: We retrospectively reviewed FDG-PET/CT images in patients with breast cancer to determine whether PET/CT improved the level of diagnostic confidence as compared with PET and to compare PET/CT and CT findings at the location of suspected malignancies. METHODS: The study included 75 patients with known breast cancer. The initial PET/CT study for each patient was retrospectively reviewed to determine whether improved diagnostic confidence (IDC) regarding lesion localization and characterization was observed with PET/CT as compared with PET alone. PET/CT and CT findings were compared regarding lesion characterization and staging in 69 of the 75 patients, and in the case of discordant findings, comparison with histological or informative follow-up results was also performed. RESULTS: Fifty of the 75 patients exhibited increased FDG uptake in a total of 95 regions. In the comparison of PET/CT and PET, PET/CT resulted in IDC in 30 (60%) of these 50 patients and in 52 (55%) of the 95 regions. In the comparison between PET/CT and CT in 69 patients, PET/CT demonstrated a significantly better accuracy than CT (P<0.05). PET/CT showed definitely positive findings in 60 regions with malignancies, among which CT exhibited positive findings in 43 (72%). PET/CT and CT accurately staged 59 (86%) and 53 (77%) of the 69 patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PET/CT added incremental diagnostic confidence to PET in more than 50% of patients and regions with increased FDG uptake. PET/CT accurately detected more regions with malignancies than did CT. This initial evaluation suggests that PET/CT is preferable to PET or CT in the diagnosis of breast cancer.
PURPOSE: We retrospectively reviewed FDG-PET/CT images in patients with breast cancer to determine whether PET/CT improved the level of diagnostic confidence as compared with PET and to compare PET/CT and CT findings at the location of suspected malignancies. METHODS: The study included 75 patients with known breast cancer. The initial PET/CT study for each patient was retrospectively reviewed to determine whether improved diagnostic confidence (IDC) regarding lesion localization and characterization was observed with PET/CT as compared with PET alone. PET/CT and CT findings were compared regarding lesion characterization and staging in 69 of the 75 patients, and in the case of discordant findings, comparison with histological or informative follow-up results was also performed. RESULTS: Fifty of the 75 patients exhibited increased FDG uptake in a total of 95 regions. In the comparison of PET/CT and PET, PET/CT resulted in IDC in 30 (60%) of these 50 patients and in 52 (55%) of the 95 regions. In the comparison between PET/CT and CT in 69 patients, PET/CT demonstrated a significantly better accuracy than CT (P<0.05). PET/CT showed definitely positive findings in 60 regions with malignancies, among which CT exhibited positive findings in 43 (72%). PET/CT and CT accurately staged 59 (86%) and 53 (77%) of the 69 patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PET/CT added incremental diagnostic confidence to PET in more than 50% of patients and regions with increased FDG uptake. PET/CT accurately detected more regions with malignancies than did CT. This initial evaluation suggests that PET/CT is preferable to PET or CT in the diagnosis of breast cancer.
Authors: F Moog; M Bangerter; C G Diederichs; A Guhlmann; J Kotzerke; E Merkle; O Kolokythas; F Herrmann; S N Reske Journal: Radiology Date: 1997-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: U Veronesi; N Cascinelli; M Greco; R Bufalino; A Morabito; D Galluzzo; R Conti; R De Lellis; V Delle Donne; P Piotti Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1985-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Didier Lardinois; Walter Weder; Thomas F Hany; Ehab M Kamel; Stephan Korom; Burkhardt Seifert; Gustav K von Schulthess; Hans C Steinert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: K Pinker; P Brader; G Karanikas; K El-Rabadi; W Bogner; S Gruber; M Reisegger; S Trattnig; T H Helbich Journal: Radiologe Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: Michael Souvatzoglou; Matthias Eiber; Toshiki Takei; Sebastian Fürst; Tobias Maurer; Florian Gaertner; Hans Geinitz; Alexander Drzezga; Sibylle Ziegler; Stephan G Nekolla; Ernst J Rummeny; Markus Schwaiger; Ambros J Beer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 9.236
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
Authors: A H Engledow; G E L Bond-Smith; D Francis; F Pakzad; J Bomanji; A Groves; P J Ell Journal: Indian J Surg Date: 2009-05-02 Impact factor: 0.656