OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of fused fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance mammography (FDG-PET/MRM) in breast cancer patients and to compare FDG-PET/MRM with MRM. METHODS: 27 breast cancer patients (mean age 58.9±9.9 years) underwent MRM and prone FDG-PET. Images were fused software-based to FDG-PET/MRM images. Histopathology served as the reference standard to define the following parameters for both MRM and FDG-PET/MRM: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy for the detection of breast cancer lesions. Furthermore, the number of patients with correctly determined lesion focality was assessed. Differences between both modalities were assessed by McNemaŕs test (p<0.05). The number of patients in whom FDG-PET/MRM would have changed the surgical approach was determined. RESULTS: 58 breast lesions were evaluated. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy were 93%, 60%, 87%, 75% and 85% for MRM, respectively. For FDG-PET/MRM they were 88%, 73%, 90%, 69% and 92%, respectively. FDG-PET/MRM was as accurate for lesion detection (p = 1) and determination of the lesions' focality (p = 0.7722) as MRM. In only 1 patient FDG-PET/MRM would have changed the surgical treatment. CONCLUSION: FDG-PET/MRM is as accurate as MRM for the evaluation of local breast cancer. FDG-PET/MRM defines the tumours' focality as accurately as MRM and may have an impact on the surgical treatment in only a small portion of patients. Based on these results, FDG-PET/MRM cannot be recommended as an adjunct or alternative to MRM.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of fused fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance mammography (FDG-PET/MRM) in breast cancerpatients and to compare FDG-PET/MRM with MRM. METHODS: 27 breast cancerpatients (mean age 58.9±9.9 years) underwent MRM and prone FDG-PET. Images were fused software-based to FDG-PET/MRM images. Histopathology served as the reference standard to define the following parameters for both MRM and FDG-PET/MRM: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy for the detection of breast cancer lesions. Furthermore, the number of patients with correctly determined lesion focality was assessed. Differences between both modalities were assessed by McNemaŕs test (p<0.05). The number of patients in whom FDG-PET/MRM would have changed the surgical approach was determined. RESULTS: 58 breast lesions were evaluated. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy were 93%, 60%, 87%, 75% and 85% for MRM, respectively. For FDG-PET/MRM they were 88%, 73%, 90%, 69% and 92%, respectively. FDG-PET/MRM was as accurate for lesion detection (p = 1) and determination of the lesions' focality (p = 0.7722) as MRM. In only 1 patientFDG-PET/MRM would have changed the surgical treatment. CONCLUSION:FDG-PET/MRM is as accurate as MRM for the evaluation of local breast cancer. FDG-PET/MRM defines the tumours' focality as accurately as MRM and may have an impact on the surgical treatment in only a small portion of patients. Based on these results, FDG-PET/MRM cannot be recommended as an adjunct or alternative to MRM.
Authors: Thomas Beyer; Markus Weigert; Harald H Quick; Uwe Pietrzyk; Florian Vogt; Christoph Palm; Gerald Antoch; Stefan P Müller; Andreas Bockisch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-02-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Till A Heusner; Sherko Kuemmel; Lale Umutlu; Angela Koeninger; Lutz S Freudenberg; Elke A M Hauth; Klaus R Kimmig; Michael Forsting; Andreas Bockisch; Gerald Antoch Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-07-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: C Riegger; J Herrmann; J Nagarajah; J Hecktor; S Kuemmel; F Otterbach; S Hahn; A Bockisch; T Lauenstein; G Antoch; T A Heusner Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Julian Kirchner; Johannes Grueneisen; Ole Martin; Mark Oehmigen; Harald H Quick; Ann-Kathrin Bittner; Oliver Hoffmann; Marc Ingenwerth; Onofrio Antonio Catalano; Philipp Heusch; Christian Buchbender; Michael Forsting; Gerald Antoch; Ken Herrmann; Lale Umutlu Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-07-28 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Matthew D Blackledge; David J Collins; Nina Tunariu; Matthew R Orton; Anwar R Padhani; Martin O Leach; Dow-Mu Koh Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-04-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Matthew D Blackledge; Nina Tunariu; Matthew R Orton; Anwar R Padhani; David J Collins; Martin O Leach; Dow-Mu Koh Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-04-28 Impact factor: 3.240