Literature DB >> 28166159

FDG PET/CT Assesses the Risk of Femoral Pathological Fractures in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Gary A Ulaner1, Alexandra M Zindman, Junting Zheng, Tae Won B Kim, John H Healey.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Assessment of pathological fracture risk is critical to optimize the use of prophylactic orthopedic fixation to prevent pathological fractures. Better prediction of pathological fracture risk is needed. We evaluated if quantitative measures of FDG avidity can assess femoral pathological fracture risk in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant retrospective case-control study was performed under institutional review board waiver. Patients with MBC who received an FDG PET/CT from January 2008 to December 2014 and had pathological fracture of the proximal femur within 3 months of PET/CT were selected as cases. Patients with MBC who had an FDG PET/CT in 2013 were sequentially screened in reverse chronological order to identify patients with proximal femoral metastases on PET/CT but no subsequent pathological fracture to serve as a control group. The prespecified goal was to have twice the number of controls as cases. Target lesions in the proximal femur, from femoral head to 5 cm below the lesser trochanter, were analyzed on FDG PET/CT for SUVmax, SUVmean, metabolic tumor volume, and total lesion glycolysis. Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare continuous variables in cases and controls. A nonparametric receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to assess the ability of quantitative FDG measurements to differentiate between cases and controls.
RESULTS: In 27 cases with pathological fracture and 55 controls without pathological fracture, all 4 quantitative measures of FDG avidity were statistically different between cases and controls (P < 0.001). A total lesion glycolysis of 81 could differentiate between fracture and nonfracture patients with accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.83, 0.85, and 0.80, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative measures of FDG avidity may help identify breast cancer patients at high risk of subsequent pathological fracture of the proximal femur.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28166159      PMCID: PMC5334437          DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000001580

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Nucl Med        ISSN: 0363-9762            Impact factor:   7.794


  22 in total

1.  Comparison of 18F-FDG PET/CT for Systemic Staging of Newly Diagnosed Invasive Lobular Carcinoma Versus Invasive Ductal Carcinoma.

Authors:  Molly P Hogan; Debra A Goldman; Brittany Dashevsky; Christopher C Riedl; Mithat Gönen; Joseph R Osborne; Maxine Jochelson; Clifford Hudis; Monica Morrow; Gary A Ulaner
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2015-08-20       Impact factor: 10.057

2.  Standardized uptake value by positron emission tomography/computed tomography as a prognostic variable in metastatic breast cancer.

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

3.  Tumor Treatment Response Based on Visual and Quantitative Changes in Global Tumor Glycolysis Using PET-FDG Imaging. The Visual Response Score and the Change in Total Lesion Glycolysis.

Authors:  Steven M. Larson; Yusuf Erdi; Timothy Akhurst; Madhu Mazumdar; Homer A. Macapinlac; Ronald D. Finn; Cecille Casilla; Melissa Fazzari; Neil Srivastava; Henry W.D. Yeung; John L. Humm; Jose Guillem; Robert Downey; Martin Karpeh; Alfred E. Cohen; Robert Ginsberg
Journal:  Clin Positron Imaging       Date:  1999-05

Review 4.  Atypical subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femoral fractures: second report of a task force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Authors:  Elizabeth Shane; David Burr; Bo Abrahamsen; Robert A Adler; Thomas D Brown; Angela M Cheung; Felicia Cosman; Jeffrey R Curtis; Richard Dell; David W Dempster; Peter R Ebeling; Thomas A Einhorn; Harry K Genant; Piet Geusens; Klaus Klaushofer; Joseph M Lane; Fergus McKiernan; Ross McKinney; Alvin Ng; Jeri Nieves; Regis O'Keefe; Socrates Papapoulos; Tet Sen Howe; Marjolein C H van der Meulen; Robert S Weinstein; Michael P Whyte
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2013-10-01       Impact factor: 6.741

5.  Fusion of metabolic function and morphology: sequential [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography/computed tomography studies yield new insights into the natural history of bone metastases in breast cancer.

Authors:  Yong Du; Ian Cullum; Tim M Illidge; Peter J Ell
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-06-25       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Critical evaluation of Mirels' rating system for impending pathologic fractures.

Authors:  Timothy A Damron; Hannah Morgan; Dave Prakash; William Grant; Jesse Aronowitz; John Heiner
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 7.  Insight opinion to surgically treated metastatic bone disease: Scandinavian Sarcoma Group Skeletal Metastasis Registry report of 1195 operated skeletal metastasis.

Authors:  Maire Ratasvuori; Rikard Wedin; Johnny Keller; Markus Nottrott; Olga Zaikova; Peter Bergh; Anders Kalen; Johan Nilsson; Halldor Jonsson; Minna Laitinen
Journal:  Surg Oncol       Date:  2013-04-04       Impact factor: 3.279

8.  Trends in incidence rates of invasive lobular and ductal breast carcinoma.

Authors:  Christopher I Li; Benjamin O Anderson; Janet R Daling; Roger E Moe
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-03-19       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 9.  Impact of skeletal complications on patients' quality of life, mobility, and functional independence.

Authors:  Luis Costa; Xavier Badia; Edward Chow; Allan Lipton; Andrew Wardley
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2008-04-08       Impact factor: 3.359

10.  Clinical characteristics of different histologic types of breast cancer.

Authors:  C I Li; D J Uribe; J R Daling
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2005-10-31       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  9 in total

Review 1.  Fracture risk assessment and clinical decision making for patients with metastatic bone disease.

Authors:  Timothy A Damron; Kenneth A Mann
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-03-23       Impact factor: 3.494

2.  What Factors Are Associated With Implant Breakage and Revision After Intramedullary Nailing for Femoral Metastases?

Authors:  Julie J Willeumier; Mustafa Kaynak; Peer van der Zwaal; Sven A G Meylaerts; Nina M C Mathijssen; Paul C Jutte; Panagiotis Tsagozis; Rikard Wedin; Michiel A J van de Sande; Marta Fiocco; P D Sander Dijkstra
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  CORR Insights®: What Is the Adverse Event Profile After Prophylactic Treatment of Femoral Shaft or Distal Femur Metastases?

Authors:  Timothy A Damron
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 4.  Computer-Assisted Surgical Navigation for Primary and Metastatic Bone Malignancy of the Pelvis: Current Evidence and Future Directions.

Authors:  Alexander B Christ; Derek G Hansen; John H Healey; Nicola Fabbri
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2021-07-07

5.  Effectiveness of Rehabilitation for Cancer Patients with Bone Metastasis.

Authors:  Maki Itokazu; Yuji Higashimoto; Masami Ueda; Kazushi Hanada; Saori Murakami; Kanji Fukuda
Journal:  Prog Rehabil Med       Date:  2022-05-18

6.  [Perioperative clinical characteristics of patients with pathological fracture of proximal femur].

Authors:  Y P Cui; C Mi; B Wang; Y X Pa; Y F Lin; X D Shi
Journal:  Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban       Date:  2019-10-18

7.  CORR Insights®: Is There an Association Between Prophylactic Femur Stabilization and Survival in Patients with Metastatic Bone Disease?

Authors:  Timothy A Damron
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 4.755

8.  The effect of variations in CT scan protocol on femoral finite element failure load assessment using phantomless calibration.

Authors:  Ali Ataei; Jelle Eikhout; Ruud G H van Leeuwen; Esther Tanck; Florieke Eggermont
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  CORR Insights®: Can a Novel Scoring System Improve on the Mirels Score in Predicting the Fracture Risk in Patients with Multiple Myeloma?

Authors:  Timothy A Damron
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 4.755

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.