BACKGROUND: The role of positron emission tomography (PET) scanning in determining the extent of disease in patients with breast cancer has not been defined. We investigated the utility of (18)F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D: -glucose (FDG)-PET scanning compared with conventional imaging with computed tomographic scanning and bone scanning in determining the extent of disease in patients with high-risk, operable breast cancer. METHODS: This was a prospective study of patients who presented to Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center for operative treatment of breast cancer. Eighty eligible patients were enrolled and underwent computed tomographic chest, abdomen, pelvis, and bone scans, followed by FDG-PET. Changes in treatment based on scan findings were recorded by the operating surgeons. Imaging findings were verified by biopsy or long-term follow-up. RESULTS: Eight (10%) of 80 patients were found to have metastatic disease that was seen on both conventional imaging and PET. Four additional patients (5%) had additional foci of disease on PET that affected treatment decisions. No patient had findings on conventional imaging alone. Conventional imaging studies resulted in a higher number of findings that generated additional tests and biopsies that ultimately had negative results (17% vs. 5% for PET). There was a statistically significant difference in specificity for PET compared with conventional imaging (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Conventional imaging and PET were equally sensitive in detecting metastatic disease in patients with high-risk, operable breast cancer, but PET generated fewer false-positive results. FDG-PET scanning should be further studied in this setting and considered in the preoperative evaluation of selected patients with breast cancer.
BACKGROUND: The role of positron emission tomography (PET) scanning in determining the extent of disease in patients with breast cancer has not been defined. We investigated the utility of (18)F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D: -glucose (FDG)-PET scanning compared with conventional imaging with computed tomographic scanning and bone scanning in determining the extent of disease in patients with high-risk, operable breast cancer. METHODS: This was a prospective study of patients who presented to Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center for operative treatment of breast cancer. Eighty eligible patients were enrolled and underwent computed tomographic chest, abdomen, pelvis, and bone scans, followed by FDG-PET. Changes in treatment based on scan findings were recorded by the operating surgeons. Imaging findings were verified by biopsy or long-term follow-up. RESULTS: Eight (10%) of 80 patients were found to have metastatic disease that was seen on both conventional imaging and PET. Four additional patients (5%) had additional foci of disease on PET that affected treatment decisions. No patient had findings on conventional imaging alone. Conventional imaging studies resulted in a higher number of findings that generated additional tests and biopsies that ultimately had negative results (17% vs. 5% for PET). There was a statistically significant difference in specificity for PET compared with conventional imaging (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Conventional imaging and PET were equally sensitive in detecting metastatic disease in patients with high-risk, operable breast cancer, but PET generated fewer false-positive results. FDG-PET scanning should be further studied in this setting and considered in the preoperative evaluation of selected patients with breast cancer.
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
Authors: Joseph R Osborne; Elisa Port; Mithat Gonen; Ashley Doane; Henry Yeung; William Gerald; Josh B Cook; Steven Larson Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ashley M Groves; Manu Shastry; Simona Ben-Haim; Irfan Kayani; Anmol Malhotra; Timothy Davidson; Tina Kelleher; Diane Whittaker; Marie Meagher; Brian Holloway; Ruth M Warren; Peter J Ell; Mohammed R Keshtgar Journal: Oncologist Date: 2012-04-26
Authors: Nathan C Hall; Stephen P Povoski; Douglas A Murrey; Michael V Knopp; Edward W Martin Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2007-12-21 Impact factor: 2.754