Diomidis Botsikas1, Ilias Bagetakos2, Marlise Picarra2,3, Ana Carolina Da Cunha Afonso Barisits2, Sana Boudabbous2, Xavier Montet2, Giang Thanh Lam4, Ismini Mainta5, Anastasia Kalovidouri2, Minerva Becker2. 1. Geneva University Hospital, Radiology Department, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland. Diomidis.Botsikas@hcuge.ch. 2. Geneva University Hospital, Radiology Department, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland. 3. Centre Hospitallier Universitaire Vaudois, Radiology Department, Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland. 4. Geneva University Hospital, Gynecology Department, Boulevard de la Cluse 30, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland. 5. Geneva University Hospital, Nuclear Medicine Department, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of 18-FDG-PET/MR and PET/CT for the N- and M- staging of breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two independent readers blinded to clinical/follow-up data reviewed PET/MR and PET/CT examinations performed for initial or recurrent breast cancer staging in 80 consecutive patients (mean age = 48 ± 12.9 years). The diagnostic confidence for lesions in the contralateral breast, axillary/internal mammary nodes, bones and other distant sites were recorded. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated. The standard of reference included pathology and/or follow-up > 12 months. RESULTS: Nine of 80 patients had bone metastases; 13/80 had other distant metastases, 44/80 had axillary, 9/80 had internal mammary and 3/80 had contralateral breast tumours. Inter-reader agreement for lesions was excellent (weighted kappa = 0.833 for PET/CT and 0.823 for PET/MR) with similar reader confidence for the two tests (ICC = 0.875). In the patient-per-patient analysis, sensitivity and specificity of PET/MRI and PET/CT were similar (p > 0.05). In the lesion-per-lesion analysis, the sensitivity of PET/MR and PET/CT for bone metastases, other metastases, axillary and internal mammary nodes, contralateral tumours and all lesions together was 0.924 and 0.6923 (p = 0.0034), 0.923 and 0.923 (p = 1), 0.854 and 0.812 (p = 0.157), 0.9 and 0.9 (p = 1), 1 and 0.25 (p = 0.083), and 0.89 and 0.77 (p = 0.0013) respectively. The corresponding specificity was 0.953 and 1 (p = 0.0081), 1 and 1 (p = 1), 0.893 and 0.92 (p = 0.257), 1 and 1 (p = 1), 0.987 and 0.99 (p = 1) and 0.96 and 0.98 (p = 0.0075) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Reader confidence, inter-reader agreement and diagnostic performance per patient were similar with PET/MR and PET/CT. However, for all lesions together, PET/MR had a superior sensitivity and lower specificity in the lesion-per-lesion analysis. KEY POINTS: • N and M breast cancer staging performance of PET/MR and PET/CT is similar per patient. • In a lesion-per-lesion analysis PET/MR is more sensitive than PET/CT especially for bone metastasis. • Readers' diagnostic confidence is similar for both tests.
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of 18-FDG-PET/MR and PET/CT for the N- and M- staging of breast cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two independent readers blinded to clinical/follow-up data reviewed PET/MR and PET/CT examinations performed for initial or recurrent breast cancer staging in 80 consecutive patients (mean age = 48 ± 12.9 years). The diagnostic confidence for lesions in the contralateral breast, axillary/internal mammary nodes, bones and other distant sites were recorded. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated. The standard of reference included pathology and/or follow-up > 12 months. RESULTS: Nine of 80 patients had bone metastases; 13/80 had other distant metastases, 44/80 had axillary, 9/80 had internal mammary and 3/80 had contralateral breast tumours. Inter-reader agreement for lesions was excellent (weighted kappa = 0.833 for PET/CT and 0.823 for PET/MR) with similar reader confidence for the two tests (ICC = 0.875). In the patient-per-patient analysis, sensitivity and specificity of PET/MRI and PET/CT were similar (p > 0.05). In the lesion-per-lesion analysis, the sensitivity of PET/MR and PET/CT for bone metastases, other metastases, axillary and internal mammary nodes, contralateral tumours and all lesions together was 0.924 and 0.6923 (p = 0.0034), 0.923 and 0.923 (p = 1), 0.854 and 0.812 (p = 0.157), 0.9 and 0.9 (p = 1), 1 and 0.25 (p = 0.083), and 0.89 and 0.77 (p = 0.0013) respectively. The corresponding specificity was 0.953 and 1 (p = 0.0081), 1 and 1 (p = 1), 0.893 and 0.92 (p = 0.257), 1 and 1 (p = 1), 0.987 and 0.99 (p = 1) and 0.96 and 0.98 (p = 0.0075) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Reader confidence, inter-reader agreement and diagnostic performance per patient were similar with PET/MR and PET/CT. However, for all lesions together, PET/MR had a superior sensitivity and lower specificity in the lesion-per-lesion analysis. KEY POINTS: • N and M breast cancer staging performance of PET/MR and PET/CT is similar per patient. • In a lesion-per-lesion analysis PET/MR is more sensitive than PET/CT especially for bone metastasis. • Readers' diagnostic confidence is similar for both tests.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast neoplasms; Magnetic resonance imaging; Neoplasm staging; Positron emission tomography computed tomography
Authors: Pascal A T Baltzer; Matthias Dietzel; Hartmut P Burmeister; Ramy Zoubi; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Oumar Camara; Werner A Kaiser Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Onofrio Antonio Catalano; Dania Daye; Alberto Signore; Carlo Iannace; Mark Vangel; Angelo Luongo; Marco Catalano; Mazzeo Filomena; Luigi Mansi; Andrea Soricelli; Marco Salvatore; Niccolo Fuin; Ciprian Catana; Umar Mahmood; Bruce Robert Rosen Journal: Int J Oncol Date: 2017-05-19 Impact factor: 5.650
Authors: Matthias Dietzel; Pascal A T Baltzer; Tibor Vag; Tobias Gröschel; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Oumar Camara; Werner A Kaiser Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: Claire Tabouret-Viaud; Diomidis Botsikas; Bénédicte M A Delattre; Ismini Mainta; Gaël Amzalag; Olivier Rager; Vincent Vinh-Hung; Raymond Miralbell; Osman Ratib Journal: Semin Nucl Med Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 4.446
Authors: Amy N Melsaether; Roy A Raad; Akshat C Pujara; Fabio D Ponzo; Kristine M Pysarenko; Komal Jhaveri; James S Babb; Eric E Sigmund; Sungheon G Kim; Linda A Moy Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Thiemo J A van Nijnatten; B Goorts; S Vöö; M de Boer; L F S Kooreman; E M Heuts; J E Wildberger; F M Mottaghy; M B I Lobbes; M L Smidt Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Basrull N Bhaludin; Nina Tunariu; Dow-Mu Koh; Christina Messiou; Alicia F Okines; Sophie E McGrath; Alistair E Ring; Marina M Parton; Bhupinder Sharma; Tanja Gagliardi; Steven D Allen; Romney Pope; Stephen R D Johnston; Kate Downey Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: Nils Martin Bruckmann; Julian Kirchner; Janna Morawitz; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; Ann-Kathrin Bittner; Oliver Hoffmann; Svjetlana Mohrmann; Marc Ingenwerth; Benedikt M Schaarschmidt; Yan Li; Andreas Stang; Gerald Antoch; Lino M Sawicki; Christian Buchbender Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jad S Husseini; Bárbara Juarez Amorim; Angel Torrado-Carvajal; Vinay Prabhu; David Groshar; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; Lina García Cañamaque; José Ramón García Garzón; William E Palmer; Pedram Heidari; Tiffany Ting-Fang Shih; Jacob Sosna; Cristina Matushita; Juliano Cerci; Marcelo Queiroz; Valdair Francisco Muglia; Marcello H Nogueira-Barbosa; Ronald J H Borra; Thomas C Kwee; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Laura Evangelista; Marco Salvatore; Alberto Cuocolo; Andrea Soricelli; Christian Herold; Andrea Laghi; Marius Mayerhoefer; Umar Mahmood; Ciprian Catana; Heike E Daldrup-Link; Bruce Rosen; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 9.236
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
Authors: Nils Martin Bruckmann; Lino M Sawicki; Julian Kirchner; Ole Martin; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; Wolfgang Fendler; Ann-Kathrin Bittner; Oliver Hoffmann; Svjetlana Mohrmann; Frederic Dietzel; Marc Ingenwerth; Benedikt M Schaarschmidt; Yan Li; Bernd Kowall; Andreas Stang; Gerald Antoch; Christian Buchbender Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 9.236