Cargando…
Comparison of CE-FDG-PET/CT with CE-FDG-PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients
BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in treatments, metastatic breast cancer remains difficult to cure. Bones constitute the most common site of first-time recurrence, occurring in 40–75% of cases. Therefore, evaluation for possible osseous metastases is crucial. Technetium 99 ((99)Tc) bone scintigraphy...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4453670/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25871331 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.112 |
_version_ | 1782374498037661696 |
---|---|
author | Catalano, O A Nicolai, E Rosen, B R Luongo, A Catalano, M Iannace, C Guimaraes, A Vangel, M G Mahmood, U Soricelli, A Salvatore, M |
author_facet | Catalano, O A Nicolai, E Rosen, B R Luongo, A Catalano, M Iannace, C Guimaraes, A Vangel, M G Mahmood, U Soricelli, A Salvatore, M |
author_sort | Catalano, O A |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in treatments, metastatic breast cancer remains difficult to cure. Bones constitute the most common site of first-time recurrence, occurring in 40–75% of cases. Therefore, evaluation for possible osseous metastases is crucial. Technetium 99 ((99)Tc) bone scintigraphy and fluorodexossyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)-computed tomography (PET-CT) are the most commonly used techniques to assess osseous metastasis. PET magnetic resonance (PET-MR) imaging is an innovative technique still under investigation. We compared the capability of PET-MR to that of same-day PET-CT to assess osseous metastases in patients with breast cancer. METHODS: One hundred and nine patients with breast cancer, who underwent same-day contrast enhanced (CE)-PET-CT and CE-PET-MR, were evaluated. CE-PET-CT and CE-PET-MR studies were interpreted by consensus by a radiologist and a nuclear medicine physician. Correlations with prior imaging and follow-up studies were used as the reference standard. Binomial confidence intervals and a χ(2) test were used for categorical data, and paired t-test was used for the SUVmax data; a non-informative prior Bayesian approach was used to estimate and compare the specificities. RESULTS: Osseous metastases affected 25 out 109 patients. Metastases were demonstrated by CE-PET-CT in 22 out of 25 patients (88%±7%), and by CE-PET-MR in 25 out of 25 patients (100%). CE-PET-CT revealed 90 osseous metastases and CE-PET-MR revealed 141 osseous metastases (P<0.001). The estimated sensitivity of CE-PET-CT and CE-PET-MR were 0.8519 and 0.9630, respectively. The estimated specificity for CE-FDG-PET-MR was 0.9884. The specificity of CE-PET-CT cannot be determined from patient-level data, because CE-PET-CT yielded a false-positive lesion in a patient who also had other, true metastases. CONCLUSIONS: CE-PET-MR detected a higher number of osseous metastases than did same-day CE-PET-CT, and was positive for 12% of the patients deemed osseous metastasis-negative on the basis of CE-PET-CT. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4453670 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-44536702016-04-28 Comparison of CE-FDG-PET/CT with CE-FDG-PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients Catalano, O A Nicolai, E Rosen, B R Luongo, A Catalano, M Iannace, C Guimaraes, A Vangel, M G Mahmood, U Soricelli, A Salvatore, M Br J Cancer Clinical Study BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in treatments, metastatic breast cancer remains difficult to cure. Bones constitute the most common site of first-time recurrence, occurring in 40–75% of cases. Therefore, evaluation for possible osseous metastases is crucial. Technetium 99 ((99)Tc) bone scintigraphy and fluorodexossyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)-computed tomography (PET-CT) are the most commonly used techniques to assess osseous metastasis. PET magnetic resonance (PET-MR) imaging is an innovative technique still under investigation. We compared the capability of PET-MR to that of same-day PET-CT to assess osseous metastases in patients with breast cancer. METHODS: One hundred and nine patients with breast cancer, who underwent same-day contrast enhanced (CE)-PET-CT and CE-PET-MR, were evaluated. CE-PET-CT and CE-PET-MR studies were interpreted by consensus by a radiologist and a nuclear medicine physician. Correlations with prior imaging and follow-up studies were used as the reference standard. Binomial confidence intervals and a χ(2) test were used for categorical data, and paired t-test was used for the SUVmax data; a non-informative prior Bayesian approach was used to estimate and compare the specificities. RESULTS: Osseous metastases affected 25 out 109 patients. Metastases were demonstrated by CE-PET-CT in 22 out of 25 patients (88%±7%), and by CE-PET-MR in 25 out of 25 patients (100%). CE-PET-CT revealed 90 osseous metastases and CE-PET-MR revealed 141 osseous metastases (P<0.001). The estimated sensitivity of CE-PET-CT and CE-PET-MR were 0.8519 and 0.9630, respectively. The estimated specificity for CE-FDG-PET-MR was 0.9884. The specificity of CE-PET-CT cannot be determined from patient-level data, because CE-PET-CT yielded a false-positive lesion in a patient who also had other, true metastases. CONCLUSIONS: CE-PET-MR detected a higher number of osseous metastases than did same-day CE-PET-CT, and was positive for 12% of the patients deemed osseous metastasis-negative on the basis of CE-PET-CT. Nature Publishing Group 2015-04-28 2015-04-14 /pmc/articles/PMC4453670/ /pubmed/25871331 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.112 Text en Copyright © 2015 Cancer Research UK http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Clinical Study Catalano, O A Nicolai, E Rosen, B R Luongo, A Catalano, M Iannace, C Guimaraes, A Vangel, M G Mahmood, U Soricelli, A Salvatore, M Comparison of CE-FDG-PET/CT with CE-FDG-PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients |
title | Comparison of CE-FDG-PET/CT with CE-FDG-PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients |
title_full | Comparison of CE-FDG-PET/CT with CE-FDG-PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients |
title_fullStr | Comparison of CE-FDG-PET/CT with CE-FDG-PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of CE-FDG-PET/CT with CE-FDG-PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients |
title_short | Comparison of CE-FDG-PET/CT with CE-FDG-PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients |
title_sort | comparison of ce-fdg-pet/ct with ce-fdg-pet/mr in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients |
topic | Clinical Study |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4453670/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25871331 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.112 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT catalanooa comparisonofcefdgpetctwithcefdgpetmrintheevaluationofosseousmetastasesinbreastcancerpatients AT nicolaie comparisonofcefdgpetctwithcefdgpetmrintheevaluationofosseousmetastasesinbreastcancerpatients AT rosenbr comparisonofcefdgpetctwithcefdgpetmrintheevaluationofosseousmetastasesinbreastcancerpatients AT luongoa comparisonofcefdgpetctwithcefdgpetmrintheevaluationofosseousmetastasesinbreastcancerpatients AT catalanom comparisonofcefdgpetctwithcefdgpetmrintheevaluationofosseousmetastasesinbreastcancerpatients AT iannacec comparisonofcefdgpetctwithcefdgpetmrintheevaluationofosseousmetastasesinbreastcancerpatients AT guimaraesa comparisonofcefdgpetctwithcefdgpetmrintheevaluationofosseousmetastasesinbreastcancerpatients AT vangelmg comparisonofcefdgpetctwithcefdgpetmrintheevaluationofosseousmetastasesinbreastcancerpatients AT mahmoodu comparisonofcefdgpetctwithcefdgpetmrintheevaluationofosseousmetastasesinbreastcancerpatients AT soricellia comparisonofcefdgpetctwithcefdgpetmrintheevaluationofosseousmetastasesinbreastcancerpatients AT salvatorem comparisonofcefdgpetctwithcefdgpetmrintheevaluationofosseousmetastasesinbreastcancerpatients |