| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 Department of Radiology, Puget Sound Veterans Affairs Health Care System, 1660
S Columbian Way, S-113-RAD, Seattle, WA 98108.
2 Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine,
1959 NE Pacific St., Seattle, WA 98195-7115.
3 Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle,
WA 98195-7115.
4 Division of Medical Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine,
Seattle, WA 98195-7115.
5 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine,
Seattle, WA 98195-7115.
OBJECTIVE. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of FDG PET on defining the extent of disease and on the treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. The medical records of 125 consecutive patients with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer referred for FDG PET from January 1998 through May 2002 were retrospectively reviewed. The rationale for FDG PET referral and the impact of FDG PET on subsequent treatment decisions for patients were determined by chart review. The impact of FDG PET on defining the extent of disease was determined by comparing the FDG PET interpretation at the time of the examination with findings from conventional imaging (CI) performed before FDG PET. FDG PET results were confirmed in nearly half (n = 61) of the patients by histopathology (n = 23) or follow-up imaging (n = 38; mean follow-up interval, 21.3 months).
RESULTS. Patients were referred for FDG PET for the following reasons: evaluation of disease response or viability after therapy (n = 43 [35%]), local recurrence, with intent of aggressive local treatment (n = 39 [31%]), equivocal findings on CI (n = 25 [20%]), evaluation of disease extent in patients with known metastases (n = 13 [10%]), and elevated tumor markers with unknown disease site (n = 5 [4%]). Compared with CI findings, the extent of disease increased in 54 (43%), did not change in 41 (33%), and decreased in 30 (24%) of 125 patients using FDG PET. Results of FDG PET altered the therapeutic plan in 40 (32%), directly helped to support the therapeutic plan in 34 (27%), and did not change the plan devised before FDG PET in 51 (41%) of 125 patients. FDG PET altered therapy most frequently in the patients suspected of having locoregional recurrence and in those being evaluated for treatment response versus other referral categories (p = 0.04). For patients with confirmation of FDG PET findings, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of FDG PET were 94%, 91%, and 92%, respectively.
CONCLUSION. FDG PET contributes significantly to defining the extent of disease and deciding on treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Mahner, S. Schirrmacher, W. Brenner, L. Jenicke, C. R. Habermann, N. Avril, and J. Dose-Schwarz Comparison between positron emission tomography using 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose, conventional imaging and computed tomography for staging of breast cancer Ann. Onc., July 1, 2008; 19(7): 1249 - 1254. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. C. Hodgson and K. Y. Gulenchyn Is There a Role for Positron Emission Tomography in Breast Cancer Staging? J. Clin. Oncol., February 10, 2008; 26(5): 712 - 720. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. L. Rosen, W. B. Eubank, and D. A. Mankoff FDG PET, PET/CT, and Breast Cancer Imaging RadioGraphics, October 1, 2007; 27(suppl_1): S215 - S229. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B Klaeser, O Wiederkehr, D Koeberle, A Mueller, B Bubeck, and B Thuerlimann Therapeutic impact of 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the pre- and postoperative staging of patients with clinically intermediate or high-risk breast cancer Ann. Onc., August 1, 2007; 18(8): 1329 - 1334. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P Veit-Haibach, G Antoch, T Beyer, H Stergar, R Schleucher, E A M Hauth, and A Bockisch FDG-PET/CT in restaging of patients with recurrent breast cancer: possible impact on staging and therapy Br. J. Radiol., July 1, 2007; 80(955): 508 - 515. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. P. Kanne, D. A. Mankoff, G. S. Baird, S. Minoshima, and R. B. Livingston Gastric Linitis Plastica from Metastatic Breast Carcinoma: FDG and FES PET Appearances Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2007; 188(6): W503 - W505. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. J. Kelloff, J. M. Hoffman, B. Johnson, H. I. Scher, B. A. Siegel, E. Y. Cheng, B. D. Cheson, J. O'Shaughnessy, K. Z. Guyton, D. A. Mankoff, et al. Progress and Promise of FDG-PET Imaging for Cancer Patient Management and Oncologic Drug Development Clin. Cancer Res., April 15, 2005; 11(8): 2785 - 2808. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
