PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to assess the role of CA 15.3, CT and positron emission tomography (PET)/CT in patients with breast cancer and suspected disease relapse after primary treatment. METHODS: We studied 111 consecutive patients (mean age 61 ± 12 years) with previous breast cancer, already treated and with clinical or biochemical suspicion of disease relapse. All patients underwent CT and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT. In all patients, the value of CA 15.3 was compared to PET/CT and CT. The final diagnosis of relapse was established by invasive and noninvasive follow-up and was compared with CA 15.3, CT and PET/CT results. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify the independent predictors of disease relapse and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the identification of optimal CA 15.3 cutoff. RESULTS: Of all patients, 40 (36%) showed an increased CA 15.3 value, CT was positive in 73 (66%), whereas at PET/CT imaging 64 (58%) showed positive findings for disease relapse. Of 40 patients with increased marker levels, 22 patients had positive CT and 30 positive PET/CT (55 vs 75%, p < 0.001). At the end of follow-up, recurrence occurred in 32 (29%) patients, 16 (50%) of whom showed high levels of CA 15.3. PET/CT predicted relapse in 26 (81%) patients, whereas CT correctly identified 23 (72%). At univariate analysis, recurrence was significantly associated with high CA 15.3 values (p < 0.05) and positive PET/CT (p < 0.005). At multivariable analysis only positive PET/CT remained an independent predictor of disease relapse (p < 0.05). ROC analysis showed an optimal cutoff point for CA 15.3 of 19.1 U/ml (AUC 0.65, p < 0.01) to individuate positive PET/CT. CONCLUSION: FDG PET/CT is more sensitive than CT and CA 15.3 in the evaluation of disease relapse. PET/CT might be considered a complementary imaging technique during follow-up in patients with breast cancer.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to assess the role of CA 15.3, CT and positron emission tomography (PET)/CT in patients with breast cancer and suspected disease relapse after primary treatment. METHODS: We studied 111 consecutive patients (mean age 61 ± 12 years) with previous breast cancer, already treated and with clinical or biochemical suspicion of disease relapse. All patients underwent CT and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT. In all patients, the value of CA 15.3 was compared to PET/CT and CT. The final diagnosis of relapse was established by invasive and noninvasive follow-up and was compared with CA 15.3, CT and PET/CT results. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify the independent predictors of disease relapse and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the identification of optimal CA 15.3 cutoff. RESULTS: Of all patients, 40 (36%) showed an increased CA 15.3 value, CT was positive in 73 (66%), whereas at PET/CT imaging 64 (58%) showed positive findings for disease relapse. Of 40 patients with increased marker levels, 22 patients had positive CT and 30 positive PET/CT (55 vs 75%, p < 0.001). At the end of follow-up, recurrence occurred in 32 (29%) patients, 16 (50%) of whom showed high levels of CA 15.3. PET/CT predicted relapse in 26 (81%) patients, whereas CT correctly identified 23 (72%). At univariate analysis, recurrence was significantly associated with high CA 15.3 values (p < 0.05) and positive PET/CT (p < 0.005). At multivariable analysis only positive PET/CT remained an independent predictor of disease relapse (p < 0.05). ROC analysis showed an optimal cutoff point for CA 15.3 of 19.1 U/ml (AUC 0.65, p < 0.01) to individuate positive PET/CT. CONCLUSION:FDG PET/CT is more sensitive than CT and CA 15.3 in the evaluation of disease relapse. PET/CT might be considered a complementary imaging technique during follow-up in patients with breast cancer.
Authors: J A van Dongen; A C Voogd; I S Fentiman; C Legrand; R J Sylvester; D Tong; E van der Schueren; P A Helle; K van Zijl; H Bartelink Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-07-19 Impact factor: 13.506
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: C S Yap; M A Seltzer; C Schiepers; S S Gambhir; J Rao; M E Phelps; P E Valk; J Czernin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Lyndsay Harris; Herbert Fritsche; Robert Mennel; Larry Norton; Peter Ravdin; Sheila Taube; Mark R Somerfield; Daniel F Hayes; Robert C Bast Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-10-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: I J Diel; E F Solomayer; S D Costa; C Gollan; R Goerner; D Wallwiener; M Kaufmann; G Bastert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-08-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alexander Robert Haug; Gerwin Paul Schmidt; Annemarie Klingenstein; Volker Heinemann; Petra Stieber; Markus Priebe; Christian la Fougère; Christoph Becker; Klaus Hahn; Reinhold Tiling Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2007 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Frederik A Verburg; Alexander Heinzel; Heribert Hänscheid; Felix M Mottaghy; Markus Luster; Luca Giovanella Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-11-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: D Groheux; S Giacchetti; M Delord; A de Roquancourt; P Merlet; A S Hamy; M Espié; E Hindié Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-11-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Michael Orth; Kirsten Lauber; Maximilian Niyazi; Anna A Friedl; Minglun Li; Cornelius Maihöfer; Lars Schüttrumpf; Anne Ernst; Olivier M Niemöller; Claus Belka Journal: Radiat Environ Biophys Date: 2013-10-20 Impact factor: 1.925