Cargando…

Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of Three-Dimensional Positron Emission Mammography versus Whole Body Positron Emission Tomography in Breast Cancer

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance of three-dimensional (3D) positron emission mammography (PEM) versus whole body positron emission tomography (WBPET) for breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 410 women with normal breast or benign or highly suspicious malignant tumors were randomized at...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dai, Dong, Song, Xiuyu, Wang, Man, Li, Lin, Ma, Wenchao, Xu, Wengui, Ma, Yunchuan, Liu, Juntian, Zhang, Jin, Liu, Peifang, Gu, Xiaoyue, Su, Yusheng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5612739/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29097927
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/5438395
_version_ 1783266118502187008
author Dai, Dong
Song, Xiuyu
Wang, Man
Li, Lin
Ma, Wenchao
Xu, Wengui
Ma, Yunchuan
Liu, Juntian
Zhang, Jin
Liu, Peifang
Gu, Xiaoyue
Su, Yusheng
author_facet Dai, Dong
Song, Xiuyu
Wang, Man
Li, Lin
Ma, Wenchao
Xu, Wengui
Ma, Yunchuan
Liu, Juntian
Zhang, Jin
Liu, Peifang
Gu, Xiaoyue
Su, Yusheng
author_sort Dai, Dong
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance of three-dimensional (3D) positron emission mammography (PEM) versus whole body positron emission tomography (WBPET) for breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 410 women with normal breast or benign or highly suspicious malignant tumors were randomized at 1 : 1 ratio to undergo 3D-PEM followed by WBPET or WBPET followed by 3D-PEM. Lumpectomy or mastectomy was performed on eligible participants after the scanning. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of 3D-PEM were 92.8% and 54.5%, respectively. WBPET showed a sensitivity of 95.7% and specificity of 56.8%. After exclusion of the patients with lesions beyond the detecting range of the 3D-PEM instrument, 3D-PEM showed higher sensitivity than WBPET (97.0% versus 95.5%, P = 0.913), particularly for small lesions (<1 cm) (72.0% versus 60.0%, P = 0.685). CONCLUSIONS: The 3D-PEM appears more sensitive to small lesions than WBPET but may fail to detect lesions that are beyond the detecting range. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee (E2012052) at the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital (Tianjin, China). The instrument positron emission mammography (PEMi) was approved by China State Food and Drug Administration under the registration number 20153331166.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5612739
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56127392017-09-28 Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of Three-Dimensional Positron Emission Mammography versus Whole Body Positron Emission Tomography in Breast Cancer Dai, Dong Song, Xiuyu Wang, Man Li, Lin Ma, Wenchao Xu, Wengui Ma, Yunchuan Liu, Juntian Zhang, Jin Liu, Peifang Gu, Xiaoyue Su, Yusheng Contrast Media Mol Imaging Clinical Study OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance of three-dimensional (3D) positron emission mammography (PEM) versus whole body positron emission tomography (WBPET) for breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 410 women with normal breast or benign or highly suspicious malignant tumors were randomized at 1 : 1 ratio to undergo 3D-PEM followed by WBPET or WBPET followed by 3D-PEM. Lumpectomy or mastectomy was performed on eligible participants after the scanning. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of 3D-PEM were 92.8% and 54.5%, respectively. WBPET showed a sensitivity of 95.7% and specificity of 56.8%. After exclusion of the patients with lesions beyond the detecting range of the 3D-PEM instrument, 3D-PEM showed higher sensitivity than WBPET (97.0% versus 95.5%, P = 0.913), particularly for small lesions (<1 cm) (72.0% versus 60.0%, P = 0.685). CONCLUSIONS: The 3D-PEM appears more sensitive to small lesions than WBPET but may fail to detect lesions that are beyond the detecting range. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee (E2012052) at the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital (Tianjin, China). The instrument positron emission mammography (PEMi) was approved by China State Food and Drug Administration under the registration number 20153331166. Hindawi 2017-07-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5612739/ /pubmed/29097927 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/5438395 Text en Copyright © 2017 Dong Dai et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Dai, Dong
Song, Xiuyu
Wang, Man
Li, Lin
Ma, Wenchao
Xu, Wengui
Ma, Yunchuan
Liu, Juntian
Zhang, Jin
Liu, Peifang
Gu, Xiaoyue
Su, Yusheng
Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of Three-Dimensional Positron Emission Mammography versus Whole Body Positron Emission Tomography in Breast Cancer
title Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of Three-Dimensional Positron Emission Mammography versus Whole Body Positron Emission Tomography in Breast Cancer
title_full Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of Three-Dimensional Positron Emission Mammography versus Whole Body Positron Emission Tomography in Breast Cancer
title_fullStr Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of Three-Dimensional Positron Emission Mammography versus Whole Body Positron Emission Tomography in Breast Cancer
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of Three-Dimensional Positron Emission Mammography versus Whole Body Positron Emission Tomography in Breast Cancer
title_short Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of Three-Dimensional Positron Emission Mammography versus Whole Body Positron Emission Tomography in Breast Cancer
title_sort comparison of diagnostic performance of three-dimensional positron emission mammography versus whole body positron emission tomography in breast cancer
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5612739/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29097927
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/5438395
work_keys_str_mv AT daidong comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceofthreedimensionalpositronemissionmammographyversuswholebodypositronemissiontomographyinbreastcancer
AT songxiuyu comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceofthreedimensionalpositronemissionmammographyversuswholebodypositronemissiontomographyinbreastcancer
AT wangman comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceofthreedimensionalpositronemissionmammographyversuswholebodypositronemissiontomographyinbreastcancer
AT lilin comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceofthreedimensionalpositronemissionmammographyversuswholebodypositronemissiontomographyinbreastcancer
AT mawenchao comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceofthreedimensionalpositronemissionmammographyversuswholebodypositronemissiontomographyinbreastcancer
AT xuwengui comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceofthreedimensionalpositronemissionmammographyversuswholebodypositronemissiontomographyinbreastcancer
AT mayunchuan comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceofthreedimensionalpositronemissionmammographyversuswholebodypositronemissiontomographyinbreastcancer
AT liujuntian comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceofthreedimensionalpositronemissionmammographyversuswholebodypositronemissiontomographyinbreastcancer
AT zhangjin comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceofthreedimensionalpositronemissionmammographyversuswholebodypositronemissiontomographyinbreastcancer
AT liupeifang comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceofthreedimensionalpositronemissionmammographyversuswholebodypositronemissiontomographyinbreastcancer
AT guxiaoyue comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceofthreedimensionalpositronemissionmammographyversuswholebodypositronemissiontomographyinbreastcancer
AT suyusheng comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceofthreedimensionalpositronemissionmammographyversuswholebodypositronemissiontomographyinbreastcancer