Shikai Hong1, Junhong Li, Shengying Wang. 1. Medical Center of Breast Disease, Anhui Tumor Hospital, Anhui Medical University, No. 107 Huan-hu East Road, Hefei 230001, PR China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the value of (18)FDG PET-CT for diagnosis of distant metastases in breast cancer patients. METHODS: Studies about PET-CT were systematically searched in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. We calculated sensitivities, specificities, likelihood ratios, and constructed summary receiver operating characteristic curves for PET-CT. We also compared the performance of PET-CT with that of conventional imaging by analyzing studies that had also used conventional imaging on the same patients. RESULTS: Across 8 PET-CT studies (748 patients), sensitivity and specificity of PET-CT were 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.90-0.98) and 0.95 (95% CI = 0.92-0.97). Across 6 comparative studies (664 patients), sensitivity and specificity of PET-CT were 0.97 (95% CI = 0.84-0.99) and 0.95 (95% CI = 0.93-0.97), and of conventional imaging were 0.56 (95% CI = 0.38-0.74) and 0.91 (95% CI = 0.78-0.97), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with conventional imaging, (18)FDG PET-CT has higher sensitivity for diagnosis of distant metastases in breast cancer patients.
BACKGROUND: We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the value of (18)FDG PET-CT for diagnosis of distant metastases in breast cancerpatients. METHODS: Studies about PET-CT were systematically searched in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. We calculated sensitivities, specificities, likelihood ratios, and constructed summary receiver operating characteristic curves for PET-CT. We also compared the performance of PET-CT with that of conventional imaging by analyzing studies that had also used conventional imaging on the same patients. RESULTS: Across 8 PET-CT studies (748 patients), sensitivity and specificity of PET-CT were 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.90-0.98) and 0.95 (95% CI = 0.92-0.97). Across 6 comparative studies (664 patients), sensitivity and specificity of PET-CT were 0.97 (95% CI = 0.84-0.99) and 0.95 (95% CI = 0.93-0.97), and of conventional imaging were 0.56 (95% CI = 0.38-0.74) and 0.91 (95% CI = 0.78-0.97), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with conventional imaging, (18)FDG PET-CT has higher sensitivity for diagnosis of distant metastases in breast cancerpatients.
Authors: Roman O Kowalchuk; Michael R Waters; Sujith Baliga; K Martin Richardson; Kelly M Spencer; James M Larner; Charles R Kersh Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2020-10
Authors: Jorianne Boers; Erik F J de Vries; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Geke A P Hospers; Carolina P Schröder Journal: Curr Oncol Rep Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 5.075
Authors: Julian Kirchner; Ole Martin; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; Ann-Kathrin Bittner; Oliver Hoffmann; Swetlana Mohrmann; Thomas Gauler; Sarah Theurer; Christina Antke; Irene Esposito; Sonja Kinner; Benedikt M Schaarschmidt; Bernd Kowall; Diana Lütke-Brintrup; Andreas Stang; Anton S Becker; Gerald Antoch; Christian Buchbender Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 4.531