Literature DB >> 9529287

Accuracy of whole-body fluorine-18-FDG PET for the detection of recurrent or metastatic breast carcinoma.

D H Moon1, J Maddahi, D H Silverman, J A Glaspy, M E Phelps, C K Hoh.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: This study assessed the diagnostic accuracy of whole-body PET on a patient and lesion basis using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) for the detection of tumor foci in patients with suspected recurrent or metastatic lesions of breast carcinoma.
METHODS: Whole-body FDG-PET imaging was performed on 57 patients with a previous history of breast carcinoma who were referred for a clinical suspicion of disease recurrence. Whole-body PET images were scored from 1 (definitely negative) to 5 (definitely positive) by three independent observers, and discrepancies were resolved by a fourth observer. Patients were clinically followed for up to 24 mo to assess the accuracy of PET diagnosis by biopsy, follow-up imaging and other diagnostic tests.
RESULTS: PET scans showed that there were 41 sites indicating recurrent or metastatic disease in 29 patients. There were 38 sites in 28 patients that showed no evidence for malignant disease. On a patient basis, with scores 4 or 5 considered to be positive, sensitivity and specificity were 93% and 79%, respectively. The corresponding positive and negative predictive values were 82% and 92%. On a lesion basis, with scores 4 or 5 considered to be positive, the sensitivity was 85% and specificity 79%. The area index in receiver operating characteristic analysis was 0.91 for patient-based analysis and 0.88 for lesion-based analysis. To determine the cause for false-negative and false-positive findings more precisely, false-negative lesions with scores of 3 or lower and false-positive lesions with scores of 4 or higher were analyzed. Bone metastases had a significantly larger proportion of false-negative lesions than other nonosseous malignant sites (p < 0.05). False-positive lesions were due to muscle uptake (n = 5), inflammation (n = 4), blood pool activity in the great vessels (n = 2), bowel uptake (n = 1) and unknown causes (n = 6).
CONCLUSION: The whole-body FDG-PET scan is a useful diagnostic test for detecting recurrent or metastatic lesions of breast carcinoma. However, the sensitivity for metastases to bone appears to be lower than that to other organs. Specificity may be improved by more strict attention to patient preparation and better recognition of physiologic skeletal muscle or artifactual uptakes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9529287

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  32 in total

1.  Tumour markers and FDG PET/CT for prediction of disease relapse in patients with breast cancer.

Authors:  Laura Evangelista; Zora Baretta; Lorenzo Vinante; Anna Rita Cervino; Michele Gregianin; Cristina Ghiotto; Giorgio Saladini; Guido Sotti
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2010-09-30       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Prospective comparison of combined 18F-FDG and 18F-NaF PET/CT vs. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging for detection of malignancy.

Authors:  Frank I Lin; Jyotsna E Rao; Erik S Mittra; Kavitha Nallapareddy; Alka Chengapa; David W Dick; Sanjiv Sam Gambhir; Andrei Iagaru
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2011-11-08       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Osteoblastic bone metastases in breast cancer: is not seeing believing?

Authors:  Ignac Fogelman
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  Diffuse desmoplastic metastatic breast cancer simulating cirrhosis with severe portal hypertension: a case of "pseudocirrhosis".

Authors:  David A Sass; Kenneth Clark; Dana Grzybicki; Mordechai Rabinovitz; Thomas A Shaw-Stiffel
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.199

5.  FDG-PET and CT patterns of bone metastases and their relationship to previously administered anti-cancer therapy.

Authors:  Ora Israel; Anat Goldberg; Alicia Nachtigal; Daniela Militianu; Rachel Bar-Shalom; Zohar Keidar; Ignac Fogelman
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2006-06-22       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 6.  Advantages and limitations of FDG PET in the follow-up of breast cancer.

Authors:  Peter Lind; Isabel Igerc; Thomas Beyer; Peter Reinprecht; Klaus Hausegger
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-04-15       Impact factor: 9.236

7.  Associations between cancer-related information seeking and receiving PET imaging for routine cancer surveillance--an analysis of longitudinal survey data.

Authors:  Andy S L Tan; Laura Gibson; Hanna M Zafar; Stacy W Gray; Robert C Hornik; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  Follow-up of women with breast cancer: comparison between MRI and FDG PET.

Authors:  Gerhard W Goerres; Sven C A Michel; Mathias K Fehr; Achim H Kaim; Hans C Steinert; Burkhardt Seifert; Gustav K von Schulthess; Rahel A Kubik-Huch
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-11-13       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 9.  The role of positron emission tomographic imaging in breast cancer.

Authors:  Michelle D McDonough; Elizabeth R DePeri; Betty A Mincey
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.075

10.  Regulation of the Warburg effect in early-passage breast cancer cells.

Authors:  Ian F Robey; Renu M Stephen; Kathy S Brown; Brenda K Baggett; Robert A Gatenby; Robert J Gillies
Journal:  Neoplasia       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 5.715

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.