PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography with fused computerized tomography (PET/CT) in comparison with same day contrast enhanced CT (CE-CT) in breast cancer management. METHOD: Seventy studies in 49 breast cancer patients, 17 for initial and 53 for restaging disease were included. All patients underwent PET/CT for diagnostic purposes followed by CE-CT scans of selected body regions. PET/CT was started approximately 90 minutes following IV injection of 10-15 mCi of F-18 FDG on a GE Discovery PET/CT system. Oral contrast was given before F-18 FDG injection. The CE-CT was performed according to departmental protocol. RESULTS: Out of a total of 257 lesions, 210 were concordant between PET/CT and CE-CT. There were 47 discordant lesions, which were verified by either biopsy (35) or follow-up (12 PET positive CE-CT negative lesions). PET/CT correctly identified 25 true positive (TP). CE-CT identified 2 TP lesions missed by PET/CT which were false negatives (FNs): one liver metastasis with necrosis, which was nonavid to FDG uptake because of necrosis and a second one missed on abdominal metastatic node, which did not change staging or treatment. PET/CT incorrectly identified 2 false positive lesions while CE-CT incorrectly identified 18 false positive. TP recurrence of the disease was found by PET/CT in 44% (15/34 pts), whereas 56% (19/34 pts) were free of disease. The CE-CT described progression of the disease in 1 true negative PET/CT study and no progression in 2 TP PET/CT studies. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive productive value, and negative productive value for PET/CT were 97.8%, 93.5%, 97.3%, 99.1%, 85% and for CE-CT were 87.6%, 42%, 82.1%, 91.6%, 31.7%. CONCLUSION: In this study, PET/CT played a more important role than CE-CT scans alone and provided an impact on the management of breast cancer patients.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography with fused computerized tomography (PET/CT) in comparison with same day contrast enhanced CT (CE-CT) in breast cancer management. METHOD: Seventy studies in 49 breast cancerpatients, 17 for initial and 53 for restaging disease were included. All patients underwent PET/CT for diagnostic purposes followed by CE-CT scans of selected body regions. PET/CT was started approximately 90 minutes following IV injection of 10-15 mCi of F-18FDG on a GE Discovery PET/CT system. Oral contrast was given before F-18FDG injection. The CE-CT was performed according to departmental protocol. RESULTS: Out of a total of 257 lesions, 210 were concordant between PET/CT and CE-CT. There were 47 discordant lesions, which were verified by either biopsy (35) or follow-up (12 PET positive CE-CT negative lesions). PET/CT correctly identified 25 true positive (TP). CE-CT identified 2 TP lesions missed by PET/CT which were false negatives (FNs): one liver metastasis with necrosis, which was nonavid to FDG uptake because of necrosis and a second one missed on abdominal metastatic node, which did not change staging or treatment. PET/CT incorrectly identified 2 false positive lesions while CE-CT incorrectly identified 18 false positive. TP recurrence of the disease was found by PET/CT in 44% (15/34 pts), whereas 56% (19/34 pts) were free of disease. The CE-CT described progression of the disease in 1 true negative PET/CT study and no progression in 2 TP PET/CT studies. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive productive value, and negative productive value for PET/CT were 97.8%, 93.5%, 97.3%, 99.1%, 85% and for CE-CT were 87.6%, 42%, 82.1%, 91.6%, 31.7%. CONCLUSION: In this study, PET/CT played a more important role than CE-CT scans alone and provided an impact on the management of breast cancerpatients.
Authors: Bernd Klaeser; Michel D Mueller; Ralph A Schmid; Carlos Guevara; Thomas Krause; Jakub Wiskirchen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: F Cornelis; M Silk; H Schoder; H Takaki; J C Durack; J P Erinjeri; C T Sofocleous; R H Siegelbaum; M Maybody; S B Solomon Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-08-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sandeep Bhoriwal; S V S Deo; Rakesh Kumar; Sanjay Thulkar; Ajay Gogia; D N Sharma; Sandeep Mathur Journal: Indian J Surg Oncol Date: 2021-03-02