Clinical Impact of FDG-PET/CT Compared with CE-CT in Response Monitoring of Metastatic Breast Cancer

SIMPLE SUMMARY: The method of treatment evaluation in patients with chronic breast cancer may affect clinical decision making and treatment protocols. In this study, we compared the two imaging modalities for the evaluation of treatment responses in 65 patients with spread breast cancer. We included 34 patients who underwent contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) and 31 patients who underwent positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT). Then, we compared the response categories and clinical effects within the two modalities during a follow-up period of an average of 17.3 months. Our results showed that CE-CT modality reported more scans as stable disease, while FDG-PET/CT modality reported regressive metastatic disease more often. This means that FDG-PET/CT responds more precisely with respect to the changes in patients’ clinical condition, while CE-CT tends to report stable disease in most of the scans. Therefore, FDG-PET/CT may be a more suitable imaging modality than CE-CT for the evaluation of treatment in patients with metastatic breast cancer. ABSTRACT: We compared response categories and impacts on treatment decisions for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients that are response-monitored with contrast-enhanced computed-tomography (CE-CT) or fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT). A comparative diagnostic study was performed on MBC patients undergoing response monitoring by CE-CT (n = 34) or FDG-PET/CT (n = 31) at the Odense University Hospital (Denmark). The responses were assessed visually and allocated into categories of complete response (CR/CMR), partial response (PR/PMR), stable disease (SD/SMD), and progressive disease (PD/PMD). Response categories, clinical impact, and positive predictive values (PPV) were compared for follow-up scans. A total of 286 CE-CT and 189 FDG-PET/CT response monitoring scans were performed. Response categories were distributed into CR (3.8%), PR (8.4%), SD (70.6%), PD (15%), and others (2.1%) by CE-CT and into CMR (22.2%), PMR (23.8%), SMD (31.2%), PMD (18.5%), and others (4.4%) by FDG-PET/CT, revealing a significant difference between the groups (P < 0.001). PD and PMD caused changes of treatment in 79.1% and 60%, respectively (P = 0.083). PPV for CE-CT and FDG-PET/CT was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.72–0.97) and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.53–0.87), respectively (P = 0.17). FDG-PET/CT indicated regression of disease more frequently than CE-CT, while CE-CT indicated stable disease more often. FDG-PET/CT seems to be more sensitive than CE-CT for monitoring response in metastatic breast cancer.