OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of whole-body (18) F-FDG PET/CT on initial staging of breast cancer in comparison to conventional staging modalities. METHODS: This study included 102 breast cancer patients, 101 patients were eligible for evaluation. Preoperative whole-body staging with PET/CT was performed in patients with clinical stage ≥ T2 tumours or positive local lymph nodes (n = 91). Postoperative PET/CT was performed in patients without these criteria but positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (n = 10). All patients underwent PET/CT and a conventional staging algorithm, which included bone scan, chest X-ray and abdominal ultrasound. PET/CT findings were compared to conventional staging and the impact on therapeutic management was evaluated. RESULTS: PET/CT led to an upgrade of the N or M stage in overall 19 patients (19 %) and newly identified manifestation of breast cancer in two patients (2 %). PET/CT findings caused a change in treatment of 11 patients (11 %). This is within the range of recent studies, all applying conventional inclusion criteria based on the initial T and N status. CONCLUSIONS: PET/CT has a relevant impact on initial staging and treatment of breast cancer when compared to conventional modalities. Further studies should assess inclusion criteria beyond the conventional T and N status, e.g. tumour grading and receptor status. KEY POINTS: • PET/CT may be relevant in staging breast cancer patients at higher risk for metastases • PET/CT may modify the N and M stage in multiple patients • PET/CT may impact treatment planning in breast cancer patients.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of whole-body (18) F-FDG PET/CT on initial staging of breast cancer in comparison to conventional staging modalities. METHODS: This study included 102 breast cancerpatients, 101 patients were eligible for evaluation. Preoperative whole-body staging with PET/CT was performed in patients with clinical stage ≥ T2 tumours or positive local lymph nodes (n = 91). Postoperative PET/CT was performed in patients without these criteria but positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (n = 10). All patients underwent PET/CT and a conventional staging algorithm, which included bone scan, chest X-ray and abdominal ultrasound. PET/CT findings were compared to conventional staging and the impact on therapeutic management was evaluated. RESULTS: PET/CT led to an upgrade of the N or M stage in overall 19 patients (19 %) and newly identified manifestation of breast cancer in two patients (2 %). PET/CT findings caused a change in treatment of 11 patients (11 %). This is within the range of recent studies, all applying conventional inclusion criteria based on the initial T and N status. CONCLUSIONS: PET/CT has a relevant impact on initial staging and treatment of breast cancer when compared to conventional modalities. Further studies should assess inclusion criteria beyond the conventional T and N status, e.g. tumour grading and receptor status. KEY POINTS: • PET/CT may be relevant in staging breast cancerpatients at higher risk for metastases • PET/CT may modify the N and M stage in multiple patients • PET/CT may impact treatment planning in breast cancerpatients.
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: U Veronesi; C De Cicco; V E Galimberti; J R Fernandez; N Rotmensz; G Viale; G Spano; A Luini; M Intra; P Veronesi; A Berrettini; G Paganelli Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2006-12-12 Impact factor: 32.976
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: T S Aukema; E J Th Rutgers; W V Vogel; H J Teertstra; H S Oldenburg; M T F D Vrancken Peeters; J Wesseling; N S Russell; R A Valdés Olmos Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2009-12-03 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Bruce E Hillner; Barry A Siegel; Dawei Liu; Anthony F Shields; Ilana F Gareen; Lucy Hanna; Sharon Hartson Stine; R Edward Coleman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E de Azambuja; F Cardoso; G de Castro; M Colozza; M S Mano; V Durbecq; C Sotiriou; D Larsimont; M J Piccart-Gebhart; M Paesmans Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2007-04-24 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Briete Goorts; Stefan Vöö; Thiemo J A van Nijnatten; Loes F S Kooreman; Maaike de Boer; Kristien B M I Keymeulen; Romy Aarnoutse; Joachim E Wildberger; Felix M Mottaghy; Marc B I Lobbes; Marjolein L Smidt Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-06-10 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Marcus Jannes; Alexander König; Martin Kolben; Claudius Fridrich; Verena Kirn Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 2.268
Authors: R Haarsma; A A van Loevezijn; M L Donswijk; A N Scholten; M T F D Vrancken Peeters; F H van Duijnhoven Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-06-21 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Jose Luis Vercher-Conejero; Laura Pelegrí-Martinez; Diego Lopez-Aznar; María Del Puig Cózar-Santiago Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2015-03-16