PURPOSE: Evidence from studies with small numbers of patients indicates that (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) accurately detects distant metastases in the staging of primary breast cancer. We compared the sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT and conventional imaging (CT, ultrasonography, radiography, and skeletal scintigraphy) for the detection of distant metastases in patients with primary breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review that identified 225 patients with primary breast cancer seen from January 2000 to September 2009 for whom PET/CT data were available for review. Imaging findings were compared with findings on biopsy, subsequent imaging, or clinical follow-up. Sensitivity and specificity in the detection of distant metastases were calculated for PET/CT and conventional imaging. Fisher's exact tests were used to test the differences in sensitivity and specificity between PET/CT and conventional imaging. RESULTS: The mean patient age at diagnosis was 53.4 years (range, 23-84 years). The sensitivity and specificity in the detection of distant metastases were 97.4% and 91.2%, respectively, for PET/CT and 85.9% and 67.3%, respectively, for conventional imaging. The sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT were significantly higher than those of conventional imaging (p = .009 and p < .001, respectively). Eleven cases of distant metastases detected by PET/CT were clinically occult and not evident on conventional imaging. CONCLUSION: PET/CT has higher sensitivity and specificity than conventional imaging in the detection of distant metastases of breast cancer. A prospective study is needed to determine whether PET/CT could replace conventional imaging to detect distant metastases in patients with primary breast cancer.
PURPOSE: Evidence from studies with small numbers of patients indicates that (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) accurately detects distant metastases in the staging of primary breast cancer. We compared the sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT and conventional imaging (CT, ultrasonography, radiography, and skeletal scintigraphy) for the detection of distant metastases in patients with primary breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review that identified 225 patients with primary breast cancer seen from January 2000 to September 2009 for whom PET/CT data were available for review. Imaging findings were compared with findings on biopsy, subsequent imaging, or clinical follow-up. Sensitivity and specificity in the detection of distant metastases were calculated for PET/CT and conventional imaging. Fisher's exact tests were used to test the differences in sensitivity and specificity between PET/CT and conventional imaging. RESULTS: The mean patient age at diagnosis was 53.4 years (range, 23-84 years). The sensitivity and specificity in the detection of distant metastases were 97.4% and 91.2%, respectively, for PET/CT and 85.9% and 67.3%, respectively, for conventional imaging. The sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT were significantly higher than those of conventional imaging (p = .009 and p < .001, respectively). Eleven cases of distant metastases detected by PET/CT were clinically occult and not evident on conventional imaging. CONCLUSION: PET/CT has higher sensitivity and specificity than conventional imaging in the detection of distant metastases of breast cancer. A prospective study is needed to determine whether PET/CT could replace conventional imaging to detect distant metastases in patients with primary breast cancer.
Authors: M Ohta; Y Tokuda; Y Suzuki; M Kubota; H Makuuchi; T Tajima; S Nasu; Y Suzuki; S Yasuda; A Shohtsu Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Tsuyoshi Hamaoka; John E Madewell; Donald A Podoloff; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Naoto T Ueno Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-07-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S Mahner; S Schirrmacher; W Brenner; L Jenicke; C R Habermann; N Avril; J Dose-Schwarz Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2008-03-19 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: Selin Carkaci; Homer A Macapinlac; Massimo Cristofanilli; Osama Mawlawi; Eric Rohren; Ana M Gonzalez Angulo; Shaheenah Dawood; Erika Resetkova; Huong T Le-Petross; Wei-Tse Yang Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-01-21 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: T Hamaoka; C M Costelloe; J E Madewell; P Liu; D A Berry; R Islam; R L Theriault; G N Hortobagyi; N T Ueno Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-01-26 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Christopher C Riedl; Katja Pinker; Gary A Ulaner; Leonard T Ong; Pascal Baltzer; Maxine S Jochelson; Heather L McArthur; Mithat Gönen; Maura Dickler; Wolfgang A Weber Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Gary A Ulaner; Raychel Castillo; Debra A Goldman; Jonathan Wills; Christopher C Riedl; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Maxine S Jochelson; Mithat Gönen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-04-30 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Christopher C Riedl; Elina Slobod; Maxine Jochelson; Monica Morrow; Debra A Goldman; Mithat Gonen; Wolfgang A Weber; Gary A Ulaner Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-09-11 Impact factor: 10.057