S Escalona1, J A Blasco, M M Reza, E Andradas, N Gómez. 1. Health Technology Assessment Unit, Unidad de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (UETS), Agencia Laín Entralgo, Gran Vía 27, Madrid, Spain. sofia.escalona@salud.madrid.org
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of FDG-PET in breast cancer in the diagnostic of primary tumours, lymph node staging, the detection of recurrent disease/metastases, and the assessment of chemotherapy treatment. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken. A search was made for primary studies, other systematic reviews, and health technology assessment reports in different databases. RESULTS: A total of 73 reports were included. FDG-PET does not appear to be sufficiently accurate to be used in isolation for ruling out the presence of a primary tumour. In lymph gland staging, FDG-PET does not appear to be accurate enough to detect occult axillary metastases or micrometastases (sensitivity 20 and 50%, respectively); sentinel node biopsy is required for confirmation. In the detection of bone metastases, FDG-PET should be complemented with other tests such as bone gammagraphy or SPECT. The assessment of response to chemotherapy, there seems to be no uniform criterion for establishing a standardized uptake value (SUV) for FDG that would allow responders and non-responders to be distinguished. CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET is insufficiently sensitive to rule out small primary tumours. Due to the high number of false positives returned, it cannot replace axillary dissection in axillary lymph gland staging. A complete biochemical response identified by FDG-PET should not be relied upon to mean an absence of disease since the technique cannot detect residual microscopic elements.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of FDG-PET in breast cancer in the diagnostic of primary tumours, lymph node staging, the detection of recurrent disease/metastases, and the assessment of chemotherapy treatment. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken. A search was made for primary studies, other systematic reviews, and health technology assessment reports in different databases. RESULTS: A total of 73 reports were included. FDG-PET does not appear to be sufficiently accurate to be used in isolation for ruling out the presence of a primary tumour. In lymph gland staging, FDG-PET does not appear to be accurate enough to detect occult axillary metastases or micrometastases (sensitivity 20 and 50%, respectively); sentinel node biopsy is required for confirmation. In the detection of bone metastases, FDG-PET should be complemented with other tests such as bone gammagraphy or SPECT. The assessment of response to chemotherapy, there seems to be no uniform criterion for establishing a standardized uptake value (SUV) for FDG that would allow responders and non-responders to be distinguished. CONCLUSIONS:FDG-PET is insufficiently sensitive to rule out small primary tumours. Due to the high number of false positives returned, it cannot replace axillary dissection in axillary lymph gland staging. A complete biochemical response identified by FDG-PET should not be relied upon to mean an absence of disease since the technique cannot detect residual microscopic elements.
Authors: M Ohta; Y Tokuda; Y Saitoh; Y Suzuki; A Okumura; M Kubota; H Makuuchi; T Tajima; S Yasuda; A Shohtsu Journal: Breast Cancer Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 4.239
Authors: Tadeusz W Stadnik; Hendrik Everaert; Smitha Makkat; Robert Sacré; Jan Lamote; Claire Bourgain Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-05-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: I C Smith; A E Welch; A W Hutcheon; I D Miller; S Payne; F Chilcott; S Waikar; T Whitaker; A K Ah-See; O Eremin; S D Heys; F J Gilbert; P F Sharp Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C Walter; K Scheidhauer; A Scharl; U-J Goering; P Theissen; H Kugel; T Krahe; U Pietrzyk Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-01-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jennifer R Bellon; Robert B Livingston; William B Eubank; Julie R Gralow; Georgiana K Ellis; Lisa K Dunnwald; David A Mankoff Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Vincent Vinh-Hung; Hendrik Everaert; Jan Lamote; Mia Voordeckers; Hilde van Parijs; Marian Vanhoeij; Guy Verfaillie; Christel Fontaine; Hansjoerg Vees; Osman Ratib; Georges Vlastos; Mark De Ridder Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-07-10 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: Monique D Dorrius; Erik F J de Vries; Riemer H J A Slart; Andor W J M Glaudemans Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ali Akbar Poursadegh Zonouzi; Azim Nejatizadeh; Mohammad Rahmati-Yamchi; Hedieh Fardmanesh; Samira Shakerizadeh; Ahmad Poursadegh Zonouzi; Kazem Nejati-Koshki; Mohammad Shekari Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2015-06-16 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Eric J Charles; Mahendra D Chordia; Yunge Zhao; Yi Zhang; J Hunter Mehaffey; David K Glover; Julien Dimastromatteo; W Zachary Chancellor; Ashish K Sharma; Irving L Kron; Dongfeng Pan; Victor E Laubach Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 5.464
Authors: Theodosia Maina; Hendrik Bergsma; Harshad R Kulkarni; Dirk Mueller; David Charalambidis; Eric P Krenning; Berthold A Nock; Marion de Jong; Richard P Baum Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-12-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Alan Desilva; Melinda Wuest; Monica Wang; Jeff Hummel; Karen Mossman; Frank Wuest; Mary M Hitt Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-12-15