PURPOSE: To explore the preoperative utility of FDG PET for the diagnosis and prognosis in a retrospective breast cancer case series. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 104 patients who had undergone a preoperative FDG PET scan for primary breast cancer at the UZ Brussel during the period 2002-2008 were identified. Selection criteria were: histological confirmation, FDG PET performed prior to therapy, and breast surgery integrated into the primary therapy plan. Patterns of increased metabolism were recorded according to the involved locations: breast, ipsilateral axillary region, internal mammary chain, or distant organs. The end-point for the survival analysis using Cox proportional hazards was disease-free survival. The contribution of prognostic factors was evaluated using the Akaike information criterion and the Nagelkerke index. RESULTS: PET positivity was associated with age, gender, tumour location, tumour size >2 cm, lymphovascular invasion, oestrogen and progesterone receptor status. Among 63 patients with a negative axillary PET status, 56 (88.9 %) had three or fewer involved nodes, whereas among 41 patients with a positive axillary PET status, 25 (61.0 %) had more than three positive nodes (P < 0.0001). In the survival analysis of preoperative characteristics, PET axillary node positivity was the foremost statistically significant factor associated with decreased disease-free survival (hazard ratio 2.81, 95% CI 1.17-6.74). CONCLUSION: Preoperative PET axillary node positivity identified patients with a higher burden of nodal involvement, which might be important for treatment decisions in breast cancer patients.
PURPOSE: To explore the preoperative utility of FDG PET for the diagnosis and prognosis in a retrospective breast cancer case series. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 104 patients who had undergone a preoperative FDG PET scan for primary breast cancer at the UZ Brussel during the period 2002-2008 were identified. Selection criteria were: histological confirmation, FDG PET performed prior to therapy, and breast surgery integrated into the primary therapy plan. Patterns of increased metabolism were recorded according to the involved locations: breast, ipsilateral axillary region, internal mammary chain, or distant organs. The end-point for the survival analysis using Cox proportional hazards was disease-free survival. The contribution of prognostic factors was evaluated using the Akaike information criterion and the Nagelkerke index. RESULTS: PET positivity was associated with age, gender, tumour location, tumour size >2 cm, lymphovascular invasion, oestrogen and progesterone receptor status. Among 63 patients with a negative axillary PET status, 56 (88.9 %) had three or fewer involved nodes, whereas among 41 patients with a positive axillary PET status, 25 (61.0 %) had more than three positive nodes (P < 0.0001). In the survival analysis of preoperative characteristics, PET axillary node positivity was the foremost statistically significant factor associated with decreased disease-free survival (hazard ratio 2.81, 95% CI 1.17-6.74). CONCLUSION: Preoperative PET axillary node positivity identified patients with a higher burden of nodal involvement, which might be important for treatment decisions in breast cancerpatients.
Authors: A Avril; G Le Bouëdec; G Lorimier; J M Classe; C Tunon-de-Lara; S Giard; G MacGrogan; M Debled; S Mathoulin-Pélissier; L Mauriac Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2011-06-12 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Joseph R Osborne; Elisa Port; Mithat Gonen; Ashley Doane; Henry Yeung; William Gerald; Josh B Cook; Steven Larson Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Patrick G Morris; Gary A Ulaner; Anne Eaton; Maurizio Fazio; Komal Jhaveri; Sujata Patil; Laura Evangelista; Joseph Y Park; Cristian Serna-Tamayo; Jane Howard; Steven Larson; Clifford A Hudis; Heather L McArthur; Maxine S Jochelson Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: David A Mankoff; Lisa K Dunnwald; Julie R Gralow; Georgiana K Ellis; Aaron Charlop; Thomas J Lawton; Erin K Schubert; Jeffrey Tseng; Robert B Livingston Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Donald A Podoloff; Douglas W Ball; Edgar Ben-Josef; Al B Benson; Steven J Cohen; R Edward Coleman; Dominique Delbeke; Maria Ho; David H Ilson; Gregory P Kalemkerian; Richard J Lee; Jay S Loeffler; Homer A Macapinlac; Robert J Morgan; Barry Alan Siegel; Seema Singhal; Douglas S Tyler; Richard J Wong Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Subrata K Ghosh; Masashi Uchida; Byunghee Yoo; Alana W Ross; Sandra J Gendler; Jianlin Gong; Anna Moore; Zdravka Medarova Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Vincent Vinh-Hung; Hilde Van Parijs; Olena Gorobets; Christel Fontaine; Nam P Nguyen; Bhumsuk Keam; Dung Minh Nguyen; Mark De Ridder Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Justine Perrin; Karim Farid; Hilde Van Parijs; Olena Gorobets; Vincent Vinh-Hung; Nam P Nguyen; Navid Djassemi; Mark De Ridder; Hendrik Everaert Journal: World J Clin Oncol Date: 2022-04-24