PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to assess the impact on management and the prognostic value of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT for initial staging of newly diagnosed large breast cancer (BC) when compared with conventional staging. METHODS: We prospectively included 142 patients with newly diagnosed BC and at least grade T2 tumour. All patients were evaluated with complete conventional imaging (CI) procedures (mammogram and/or breast ultrasound, bone scan, abdominal ultrasound and/or CT, X-rays and/or CT of the chest), followed by FDG PET/CT exploration, prior to treatment. The treatment plan based on CI staging was compared with that based on PET/CT findings. CI and PET/CT findings were confirmed by imaging and clinical follow-up and/or pathology when assessable. Progression-free survival (PFS) was analysed using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS: According to CI staging, 79 patients (56%) were stage II, 46 (32%) stage III and 17 (12%) stage IV (distant metastases). Of the patients, 30 (21%) were upstaged by PET/CT, including 12 (8%) from stage II or III to stage IV. On the other hand, 23 patients (16%) were downstaged by PET/CT, including 4 (3%) from stage IV to stage II or III. PET/CT had a high or medium impact on management planning for 18 patients (13%). Median follow-up was 30 months (range 9-59 months); 37 patients (26%) experienced recurrence or progression of disease during follow-up and 17 patients (12%) died. The Cox model indicated that CI staging was significantly associated with PFS (p = 0.01), but PET/CT staging provided stronger prognostic stratification (p < 0.0001). Moreover, Cox regression multivariate analysis showed that only PET/CT staging remained associated with PFS (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: FDG PET/CT provides staging information that more accurately stratifies prognostic risk in newly diagnosed large BC when compared with conventional explorations alone.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to assess the impact on management and the prognostic value of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT for initial staging of newly diagnosed large breast cancer (BC) when compared with conventional staging. METHODS: We prospectively included 142 patients with newly diagnosed BC and at least grade T2 tumour. All patients were evaluated with complete conventional imaging (CI) procedures (mammogram and/or breast ultrasound, bone scan, abdominal ultrasound and/or CT, X-rays and/or CT of the chest), followed by FDG PET/CT exploration, prior to treatment. The treatment plan based on CI staging was compared with that based on PET/CT findings. CI and PET/CT findings were confirmed by imaging and clinical follow-up and/or pathology when assessable. Progression-free survival (PFS) was analysed using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS: According to CI staging, 79 patients (56%) were stage II, 46 (32%) stage III and 17 (12%) stage IV (distant metastases). Of the patients, 30 (21%) were upstaged by PET/CT, including 12 (8%) from stage II or III to stage IV. On the other hand, 23 patients (16%) were downstaged by PET/CT, including 4 (3%) from stage IV to stage II or III. PET/CT had a high or medium impact on management planning for 18 patients (13%). Median follow-up was 30 months (range 9-59 months); 37 patients (26%) experienced recurrence or progression of disease during follow-up and 17 patients (12%) died. The Cox model indicated that CI staging was significantly associated with PFS (p = 0.01), but PET/CT staging provided stronger prognostic stratification (p < 0.0001). Moreover, Cox regression multivariate analysis showed that only PET/CT staging remained associated with PFS (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: FDG PET/CT provides staging information that more accurately stratifies prognostic risk in newly diagnosed large BC when compared with conventional explorations alone.
Authors: K L Cooper; S Harnan; Y Meng; S E Ward; P Fitzgerald; D Papaioannou; L Wyld; C Ingram; I D Wilkinson; E Lorenz Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2011-01-26 Impact factor: 4.424
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: Kathleen I Pritchard; Jim A Julian; Claire M B Holloway; David McCready; Karen Yvonne Gulenchyn; Ralph George; Nicole Hodgson; Peter Lovrics; Francisco Perera; Leela Elavathil; Frances P O'Malley; Nancy Down; Audley Bodurtha; Wendy Shelley; Mark N Levine Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-03-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M Bernsdorf; A K Berthelsen; V T Wielenga; N Kroman; D Teilum; T Binderup; U B Tange; M Andersson; A Kjær; A Loft; J Graff Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-02-21 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Milena Sant; Claudia Allemani; Riccardo Capocaccia; Timo Hakulinen; Tiiu Aareleid; Jan Willem Coebergh; Michel P Coleman; Pascale Grosclaude; Carmen Martinez; Janine Bell; Judith Youngson; Franco Berrino Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2003-09-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Colleen M Costelloe; Eric M Rohren; John E Madewell; Tsuyoshi Hamaoka; Richard L Theriault; Tse-Kuan Yu; Valerae O Lewis; Jingfei Ma; R Jason Stafford; Ana M Tari; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Naoto T Ueno Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 41.316
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: Ana María García Vicente; Ángel Soriano Castrejón; Jesús Fernando López-Fidalgo; Mariano Amo-Salas; María Del Mar Muñoz Sanchez; Ruth Álvarez Cabellos; Ruth Espinosa Aunión Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: J Krammer; A Schnitzer; C G Kaiser; K A Buesing; E Sperk; J Brade; S Wasgindt; M Suetterlin; S O Schoenberg; E J Sutton; K Wasser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-02-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: D Groheux; S Giacchetti; M Delord; A de Roquancourt; P Merlet; A S Hamy; M Espié; E Hindié Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-11-29 Impact factor: 9.236