Fangfang Tian1, Guohua Shen1, Yunfu Deng2, Wei Diao1, Zhiyun Jia3. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, Sichuan, People's Republic of China, 610041. 2. Department of Oncology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of China, 610041. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, Sichuan, People's Republic of China, 610041. zhiyunjia@hotmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in predicting the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in breast cancer (BC) patients. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library (Central), and the Web of Science (SCI-Expanded) were systematically searched to identify pertinent studies. The methodologic quality of the included studies was assessed by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to explore the existence of a threshold effect. Heterogeneity was assessed by the likelihood ratio I 2 index. RESULTS: The pooled values calculated with a mixed-effects model for the sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals were 81.9% (76.0-86.6%), 79.3% (72.1-85.1%) and 17.35 (10.98-27.42), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: 18F-FDG PET/CT has a moderate accuracy in predicting the pathological response during the early process of NAC in breast cancer patients. To increase the role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in monitoring the therapy response, future prospective studies are needed to explore how chemotherapy regimens and different subtypes affect the levels of glucose metabolism. KEY POINTS: • This meta-analysis assesses the role of PET/CT in breast cancer during NAC. • Pathological responses were based on both primary tumour and lymph node. • 18 F-FDG PET/CT has a moderate accuracy in predicting the pathological response.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in predicting the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in breast cancer (BC) patients. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library (Central), and the Web of Science (SCI-Expanded) were systematically searched to identify pertinent studies. The methodologic quality of the included studies was assessed by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to explore the existence of a threshold effect. Heterogeneity was assessed by the likelihood ratio I 2 index. RESULTS: The pooled values calculated with a mixed-effects model for the sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals were 81.9% (76.0-86.6%), 79.3% (72.1-85.1%) and 17.35 (10.98-27.42), respectively. CONCLUSIONS:18F-FDG PET/CT has a moderate accuracy in predicting the pathological response during the early process of NAC in breast cancerpatients. To increase the role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in monitoring the therapy response, future prospective studies are needed to explore how chemotherapy regimens and different subtypes affect the levels of glucose metabolism. KEY POINTS: • This meta-analysis assesses the role of PET/CT in breast cancer during NAC. • Pathological responses were based on both primary tumour and lymph node. • 18 F-FDG PET/CT has a moderate accuracy in predicting the pathological response.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast neoplasms; Meta-analysis; Neoadjuvant therapy; Pathological response; Positron-emission tomography
Authors: David Groheux; Elif Hindié; Sylvie Giacchetti; Anne-Sophie Hamy; Frederique Berger; Pascal Merlet; Anne de Roquancourt; Patricia de Cremoux; Michel Marty; Mathieu Hatt; Marc Espié Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2014-05-16 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Roisin M Connolly; Jeffrey P Leal; Matthew P Goetz; Zhe Zhang; Xian C Zhou; Lisa K Jacobs; Joyce Mhlanga; Joo H O; John Carpenter; Anna Maria Storniolo; Stanley Watkins; John H Fetting; Robert S Miller; Kostandinos Sideras; Stacie C Jeter; Bridget Walsh; Penny Powers; Jane Zorzi; Judy C Boughey; Nancy E Davidson; Lisa A Carey; Antonio C Wolff; Nagi Khouri; Edward Gabrielson; Richard L Wahl; Vered Stearns Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-12-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: O Humbert; A Berriolo-Riedinger; J M Riedinger; B Coudert; L Arnould; A Cochet; C Loustalot; P Fumoleau; F Brunotte Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-04-12 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Ana María García Vicente; Mariano Amo-Salas; Fernanda Relea Calatayud; María Del Mar Muñoz Sánchez; Francisco José Pena Pardo; Germán Andrés Jiménez Londoño; Ruth Álvarez Cabellos; Ruth Espinosa Aunión; Ángel Soriano Castrejón Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: David Groheux; Mathieu Hatt; Elif Hindié; Sylvie Giacchetti; Patricia de Cremoux; Jacqueline Lehmann-Che; Antoine Martineau; Michel Marty; Caroline Cuvier; Catherine Cheze-Le Rest; Anne de Roquancourt; Dimitris Visvikis; Marc Espié Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Stefanie Avril; Raymond F Muzic; Donna Plecha; Bryan J Traughber; Shaveta Vinayak; Norbert Avril Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ober Van Gómez; Joaquin L Herraiz; José Manuel Udías; Alexander Haug; Laszlo Papp; Dania Cioni; Emanuele Neri Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-14 Impact factor: 6.575