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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |