PURPOSE: Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) may reveal distant metastases more accurately than conventional imaging (CT, skeletal scintigraphy, chest radiography). We hypothesized that patients diagnosed with stage III noninflammatory breast cancer (non-IBC) and IBC by conventional imaging with PET/CT have a better prognosis than patients diagnosed without PET/CT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified 935 patients with stage III breast cancer in 2000-2009. We compared the relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) times of patients diagnosed by conventional imaging with those of patients diagnosed by conventional imaging plus PET/CT. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess associations between survival and PET/CT. RESULTS: RFS and OS times were not significantly different between patients imaged with PET/CT and those imaged without PET/CT. However, the RFS time in IBC patients was significantly different between patients imaged with PET/CT and those imaged without PET/CT on both univariate (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; p = .014) and multivariate (HR, 0.33; p = .004) analysis. There was a trend for a longer OS duration in IBC patients imaged with PET/CT. CONCLUSION: Among IBC patients, adding PET/CT to staging based on conventional imaging might detect patients with metastases that were not detected by conventional imaging. The use of conventional imaging with PET/CT for staging in non-IBC patients is not justified on the basis of these retrospective data. The use of conventional imaging plus PET/CT in staging IBC needs to be studied prospectively to determine whether it will improve prognosis.
PURPOSE:Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) may reveal distant metastases more accurately than conventional imaging (CT, skeletal scintigraphy, chest radiography). We hypothesized that patients diagnosed with stage III noninflammatory breast cancer (non-IBC) and IBC by conventional imaging with PET/CT have a better prognosis than patients diagnosed without PET/CT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified 935 patients with stage III breast cancer in 2000-2009. We compared the relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) times of patients diagnosed by conventional imaging with those of patients diagnosed by conventional imaging plus PET/CT. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess associations between survival and PET/CT. RESULTS: RFS and OS times were not significantly different between patients imaged with PET/CT and those imaged without PET/CT. However, the RFS time in IBC patients was significantly different between patients imaged with PET/CT and those imaged without PET/CT on both univariate (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; p = .014) and multivariate (HR, 0.33; p = .004) analysis. There was a trend for a longer OS duration in IBC patients imaged with PET/CT. CONCLUSION: Among IBC patients, adding PET/CT to staging based on conventional imaging might detect patients with metastases that were not detected by conventional imaging. The use of conventional imaging with PET/CT for staging in non-IBC patients is not justified on the basis of these retrospective data. The use of conventional imaging plus PET/CT in staging IBC needs to be studied prospectively to determine whether it will improve prognosis.
Authors: Alberto Ravaioli; Giuseppe Pasini; Antonio Polselli; Maximilian Papi; Davide Tassinari; Valentina Arcangeli; Carlo Milandri; Dino Amadori; Matteo Bravi; Daniela Rossi; Pier Paolo Fattori; Enzo Pasquini; Ilaria Panzini Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Andreas K Buck; Ken Herrmann; Tom Stargardt; Tobias Dechow; Bernd Joachim Krause; Jonas Schreyögg Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-02-11 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: F Puglisi; A Follador; A M Minisini; G G Cardellino; S Russo; C Andreetta; S Di Terlizzi; A Piga Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Bernd Gerber; Eva Seitz; Heiner Müller; Annette Krause; Toralf Reimer; Günther Kundt; Klaus Friese Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: S Eva Singletary; Craig Allred; Pandora Ashley; Lawrence W Bassett; Donald Berry; Kirby I Bland; Patrick I Borgen; Gary M Clark; Stephen B Edge; Daniel F Hayes; Lorie L Hughes; Robert V P Hutter; Monica Morrow; David L Page; Abram Recht; Richard L Theriault; Ann Thor; Donald L Weaver; H Samuel Wieand; Frederick L Greene Journal: Surg Clin North Am Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 2.741
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: Chiaojung Jillian Tsai; Jing Li; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Pamela K Allen; Wendy A Woodward; Naoto T Ueno; Anthony Lucci; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Yun Gong; Wei Yang; Massimo Cristofanilli; Vicente Valero; Thomas A Buchholz Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 2.339