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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Helland, Fredrik, Hallin Henriksen, Martine, Gerke, Oke, Vogsen, Marianne, Høilund-Carlsen, Poul Flemming, Hildebrandt, Malene Grubbe
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