AIM: While it is well-known that there is 18F-FDG uptake in breast tumors, clinical impact of (18)F-FDG PET in managing breast cancer patients is not well-studied. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-three consecutive breast cancer patients from May 1996 to June 2000 were studied. All patients were treated and being followed. Reasons of referral included equivocal conventional studies, staging/re-staging, clinical suspicion of recurrence, and elevated serum tumor markers. Clinical status at 6 months postPET is used as the gold standard in lesions of worsening versus stable or improving. RESULTS: PET was 69% sensitive and 80% specific in predicting clinical stage at 6 months. This 69% of the patients who got worse at 6 months was PET positive and 80% of the patients who were stable or improving at 6 months were PET negative. There was a significant association between PET results and clinical outcome, after adjusting for stage of disease (P=0.04), or for the treatment patients received (P<0.01). Negative PET results changed therapy as often as positive ones did. PET influenced treatment decisions in 74% of the patients referred for study. CONCLUSIONS: PET holds promise as a sensitive and specific modality in following treated breast cancer patients. PET results contain information on 6 month outcome that is independent of stage or past treatment and influence patient management.
AIM: While it is well-known that there is 18F-FDG uptake in breast tumors, clinical impact of (18)F-FDG PET in managing breast cancerpatients is not well-studied. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-three consecutive breast cancerpatients from May 1996 to June 2000 were studied. All patients were treated and being followed. Reasons of referral included equivocal conventional studies, staging/re-staging, clinical suspicion of recurrence, and elevated serum tumor markers. Clinical status at 6 months postPET is used as the gold standard in lesions of worsening versus stable or improving. RESULTS: PET was 69% sensitive and 80% specific in predicting clinical stage at 6 months. This 69% of the patients who got worse at 6 months was PET positive and 80% of the patients who were stable or improving at 6 months were PET negative. There was a significant association between PET results and clinical outcome, after adjusting for stage of disease (P=0.04), or for the treatment patients received (P<0.01). Negative PET results changed therapy as often as positive ones did. PET influenced treatment decisions in 74% of the patients referred for study. CONCLUSIONS: PET holds promise as a sensitive and specific modality in following treated breast cancerpatients. PET results contain information on 6 month outcome that is independent of stage or past treatment and influence patient management.