BACKGROUND: This study was designed to determine whether a preoperative fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) integrated with computed tomography (CT) (FDG-PET/CT) could be used as a guide for axillary node dissection (AND) or sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNB) in breast cancer patients. METHODS: Between February 2007 and April 2008, we performed FDG-PET/CT scans in 137 biopsy-proven breast cancer patients planning to have an SNB to select patients for either AND (PET/CT N+) or SNB (PET/CT N0). In performing SNB, we also performed additional non-SNB (ADD), which was enlarged at the lower axilla. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients with positive scans underwent complete AND as a primary procedure, and 110 patients with negative scans underwent SNB + ADD. There were 8 cases of false negative scans, and no case of false positive scan. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and overall accuracy of FDG-PET/CT in predicting axillary metastasis were 77.1%, 100%, 100%, and 94.2%, respectively. In a subset of 110 patients with SNB + ADD, 104 patients had histologically negative SN, and 6 patients had positive SN in frozen section. Among 110 SNB + ADD cases, there were only 8 cases (7.3%) of positive axillary basins in permanent biopsy, including two cases of late positives that had micrometastases in the SN only. Through selective SNB + ADD based on an FDG-PET/CT, we have spared 27 unnecessary SNBs (true positive scans). CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET/CT is a specific imaging modality for predicting axillary node metastasis, and allows for a selective approach to either AND or SNB. A selective SNB + ADD based on an FDG-PET/CT reduced both unnecessary SNBs and positive axillary basins, enhancing the identification rates of SN and the accuracy of SNB.
BACKGROUND: This study was designed to determine whether a preoperative fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) integrated with computed tomography (CT) (FDG-PET/CT) could be used as a guide for axillary node dissection (AND) or sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNB) in breast cancerpatients. METHODS: Between February 2007 and April 2008, we performed FDG-PET/CT scans in 137 biopsy-proven breast cancerpatients planning to have an SNB to select patients for either AND (PET/CT N+) or SNB (PET/CT N0). In performing SNB, we also performed additional non-SNB (ADD), which was enlarged at the lower axilla. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients with positive scans underwent complete AND as a primary procedure, and 110 patients with negative scans underwent SNB + ADD. There were 8 cases of false negative scans, and no case of false positive scan. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and overall accuracy of FDG-PET/CT in predicting axillary metastasis were 77.1%, 100%, 100%, and 94.2%, respectively. In a subset of 110 patients with SNB + ADD, 104 patients had histologically negative SN, and 6 patients had positive SN in frozen section. Among 110 SNB + ADD cases, there were only 8 cases (7.3%) of positive axillary basins in permanent biopsy, including two cases of late positives that had micrometastases in the SN only. Through selective SNB + ADD based on an FDG-PET/CT, we have spared 27 unnecessary SNBs (true positive scans). CONCLUSIONS:FDG-PET/CT is a specific imaging modality for predicting axillary node metastasis, and allows for a selective approach to either AND or SNB. A selective SNB + ADD based on an FDG-PET/CT reduced both unnecessary SNBs and positive axillary basins, enhancing the identification rates of SN and the accuracy of SNB.
Authors: A Y de Kanter; C H van Eijck; A N van Geel; R H Kruijt; S C Henzen; M A Paul; A M Eggermont; T Wiggers Journal: Br J Surg Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: William B Eubank; David A Mankoff; Hubert J Vesselle; Janet F Eary; Erin K Schubert; Lisa K Dunnwald; Skyler K Lindsley; Julie R Gralow; Mary M Austin-Seymour; Georgianna K Ellis; Robert B Livingston Journal: Radiographics Date: 2002 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Steve Shivers; Charles Cox; George Leight; Daniel Beauchamp; Peter Blumencranz; Merrick Ross; Douglas Reintgen Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: N Avril; C A Rosé; M Schelling; J Dose; W Kuhn; S Bense; W Weber; S Ziegler; H Graeff; M Schwaiger Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-10-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Igor Langer; Walter Richard Marti; Ulrich Guller; Holger Moch; Felix Harder; Daniel Oertli; Markus Zuber Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: K Motomura; H Inaji; Y Komoike; T Kasugai; S Nagumo; Y Hasegawa; S Noguchi; H Koyama Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Mathias K Fehr; Rene Hornung; Zsuzsanna Varga; Daniel Burger; Thomas Hess; Urs Haller; Daniel Fink; Gustav K von Schulthess; Hans C Steinert Journal: Breast J Date: 2004 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: V Kuenen-Boumeester; M Menke-Pluymers; A Y de Kanter; I-M A Obdeijn; D Urich; T H Van Der Kwast Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: A Sapino; P Cassoni; E Zanon; F Fraire; S Croce; C Coluccia; M Donadio; G Bussolati Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2003-03-10 Impact factor: 7.640
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