Cargando…
FDG-PET/CT Versus Contrast-Enhanced CT for Response Evaluation in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review
18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with integrated computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) can be used for response evaluation in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). In this study, we aimed to review literature comparing the PET Response Criteria...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6787711/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31461923 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics9030106 |
_version_ | 1783458333704847360 |
---|---|
author | Helland, Fredrik Hallin Henriksen, Martine Gerke, Oke Vogsen, Marianne Høilund-Carlsen, Poul Flemming Hildebrandt, Malene Grubbe |
author_facet | Helland, Fredrik Hallin Henriksen, Martine Gerke, Oke Vogsen, Marianne Høilund-Carlsen, Poul Flemming Hildebrandt, Malene Grubbe |
author_sort | Helland, Fredrik |
collection | PubMed |
description | 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with integrated computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) can be used for response evaluation in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). In this study, we aimed to review literature comparing the PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) in patients with MBC. We made a systematic search in Embase, PubMed/Medline, and Cochrane Library using a modified PICO model. The population was MBC patients and the intervention was PERCIST or RECIST. Quality assessment was performed using the QUADAS-2 checklist. A total of 1975 articles were identified. After screening by title/abstract, 78 articles were selected for further analysis of which 2 duplicates and 33 abstracts/out of focus articles were excluded. The remaining 43 articles provided useful information, but only one met the inclusion and none of the exclusion criteria. This was a retrospective study of 65 patients with MBC showing one-year progression-free survival for responders versus non-responders to be 59% vs. 27% (p = 0.2) by RECIST compared to 64% vs. 0% (p = 0.0001) by PERCIST. This systematic literature review identified a lack of studies comparing the use of RECIST (with CE-CT) and PERCIST (with FDG-PET/CT) for response evaluation in metastatic breast cancer. The available sparse literature suggests that PERCIST might be more appropriate than RECIST for predicting prognosis in patients with MBC. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6787711 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67877112019-10-16 FDG-PET/CT Versus Contrast-Enhanced CT for Response Evaluation in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review Helland, Fredrik Hallin Henriksen, Martine Gerke, Oke Vogsen, Marianne Høilund-Carlsen, Poul Flemming Hildebrandt, Malene Grubbe Diagnostics (Basel) Review 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with integrated computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) can be used for response evaluation in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). In this study, we aimed to review literature comparing the PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) in patients with MBC. We made a systematic search in Embase, PubMed/Medline, and Cochrane Library using a modified PICO model. The population was MBC patients and the intervention was PERCIST or RECIST. Quality assessment was performed using the QUADAS-2 checklist. A total of 1975 articles were identified. After screening by title/abstract, 78 articles were selected for further analysis of which 2 duplicates and 33 abstracts/out of focus articles were excluded. The remaining 43 articles provided useful information, but only one met the inclusion and none of the exclusion criteria. This was a retrospective study of 65 patients with MBC showing one-year progression-free survival for responders versus non-responders to be 59% vs. 27% (p = 0.2) by RECIST compared to 64% vs. 0% (p = 0.0001) by PERCIST. This systematic literature review identified a lack of studies comparing the use of RECIST (with CE-CT) and PERCIST (with FDG-PET/CT) for response evaluation in metastatic breast cancer. The available sparse literature suggests that PERCIST might be more appropriate than RECIST for predicting prognosis in patients with MBC. MDPI 2019-08-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6787711/ /pubmed/31461923 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics9030106 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Helland, Fredrik Hallin Henriksen, Martine Gerke, Oke Vogsen, Marianne Høilund-Carlsen, Poul Flemming Hildebrandt, Malene Grubbe FDG-PET/CT Versus Contrast-Enhanced CT for Response Evaluation in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review |
title | FDG-PET/CT Versus Contrast-Enhanced CT for Response Evaluation in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review |
title_full | FDG-PET/CT Versus Contrast-Enhanced CT for Response Evaluation in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review |
title_fullStr | FDG-PET/CT Versus Contrast-Enhanced CT for Response Evaluation in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review |
title_full_unstemmed | FDG-PET/CT Versus Contrast-Enhanced CT for Response Evaluation in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review |
title_short | FDG-PET/CT Versus Contrast-Enhanced CT for Response Evaluation in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review |
title_sort | fdg-pet/ct versus contrast-enhanced ct for response evaluation in metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6787711/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31461923 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics9030106 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hellandfredrik fdgpetctversuscontrastenhancedctforresponseevaluationinmetastaticbreastcancerasystematicreview AT hallinhenriksenmartine fdgpetctversuscontrastenhancedctforresponseevaluationinmetastaticbreastcancerasystematicreview AT gerkeoke fdgpetctversuscontrastenhancedctforresponseevaluationinmetastaticbreastcancerasystematicreview AT vogsenmarianne fdgpetctversuscontrastenhancedctforresponseevaluationinmetastaticbreastcancerasystematicreview AT høilundcarlsenpoulflemming fdgpetctversuscontrastenhancedctforresponseevaluationinmetastaticbreastcancerasystematicreview AT hildebrandtmalenegrubbe fdgpetctversuscontrastenhancedctforresponseevaluationinmetastaticbreastcancerasystematicreview |