Sang Yu Nam1, Su Joa Ahn1, Young Rock Jang2, Yong Soon Chun3, Heung Kyu Park3, Seung Joon Choi1, Hye Young Choi1, Jeong Ho Kim1. 1. Department of Radiology, Gil Medical Center of Gachon University, Incheon, South Korea. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Gil Medical Center of Gachon University, Incheon, South Korea. 3. Department of Surgery Breast Cancer Center, Gil Medical Center of Gachon University, Incheon, South Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of follow-up with non-enhanced CT (NECT) in patients with breast cancer. METHODS: The present retrospective study included 1396 patients with breast cancer. Group A included patients with no metastasis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of NECT in detecting newly developed metastasis. Group B included patients with known hepatic metastasis to evaluate the accuracy of NECT for the assessment of hepatic metastasis. RESULTS: Group A included 895 patients (mean age 52.8 years). Among them, 145 patients had 160 metastases. The per-patient sensitivities for diagnosing newly developed metastasis were 68.3 and 53.8% according to the two reviewers, while the per-lesion sensitivities were 89.4 and 85.0%. Sensitivities for bone metastasis were 98.9 and 95.9%, while sensitivities for hepatic metastasis were 73.7 and 68.4%. In group B, the accuracy of hepatic metastasis response evaluation according to the RECIST criteria was 70.8% for reviewer 1 and 63.8% for reviewer 2. CONCLUSIONS: NECT showed inadequate diagnostic performance in detecting newly developed metastasis and in evaluating the response of hepatic metastasis. However, NECT can be utilized as a follow-up modality in patients with decreased renal function or hypersensitivity to iodinated contrast media. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The risk of side effects of contrast media should be considered as important when NECT can be utilized as a follow-up modality in decreased renal function patients.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of follow-up with non-enhanced CT (NECT) in patients with breast cancer. METHODS: The present retrospective study included 1396 patients with breast cancer. Group A included patients with no metastasis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of NECT in detecting newly developed metastasis. Group B included patients with known hepatic metastasis to evaluate the accuracy of NECT for the assessment of hepatic metastasis. RESULTS: Group A included 895 patients (mean age 52.8 years). Among them, 145 patients had 160 metastases. The per-patient sensitivities for diagnosing newly developed metastasis were 68.3 and 53.8% according to the two reviewers, while the per-lesion sensitivities were 89.4 and 85.0%. Sensitivities for bone metastasis were 98.9 and 95.9%, while sensitivities for hepatic metastasis were 73.7 and 68.4%. In group B, the accuracy of hepatic metastasis response evaluation according to the RECIST criteria was 70.8% for reviewer 1 and 63.8% for reviewer 2. CONCLUSIONS: NECT showed inadequate diagnostic performance in detecting newly developed metastasis and in evaluating the response of hepatic metastasis. However, NECT can be utilized as a follow-up modality in patients with decreased renal function or hypersensitivity to iodinated contrast media. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The risk of side effects of contrast media should be considered as important when NECT can be utilized as a follow-up modality in decreased renal function patients.
Authors: Mizuki Nishino; Jyothi P Jagannathan; Nikhil H Ramaiya; Annick D Van den Abbeele Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Chikako Suzuki; Hans Jacobsson; Thomas Hatschek; Michael R Torkzad; Katarina Bodén; Yvonne Eriksson-Alm; Elisabeth Berg; Hirofumi Fujii; Atsushi Kubo; Lennart Blomqvist Journal: Radiographics Date: 2008 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Peter Mæhre Lauritzen; Jack Gunnar Andersen; Mali Victoria Stokke; Anne Lise Tennstrand; Rolf Aamodt; Thomas Heggelund; Fredrik A Dahl; Gunnar Sandbæk; Petter Hurlen; Pål Gulbrandsen Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2016-03-24 Impact factor: 7.035