Cargando…

Comparison of nodal staging between CT, MRI, and [(18)F]-FDG PET/MRI in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer

PURPOSE: To compare CT, MRI, and [(18)F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ([(18)F]-FDG PET/MRI) for nodal status, regarding quantity and location of metastatic locoregional lymph nodes in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred eighty-two patien...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Morawitz, Janna, Bruckmann, Nils-Martin, Dietzel, Frederic, Ullrich, Tim, Bittner, Ann-Kathrin, Hoffmann, Oliver, Ruckhäberle, Eugen, Mohrmann, Svjetlana, Häberle, Lena, Ingenwerth, Marc, Abrar, Daniel Benjamin, Sawicki, Lino Morris, Breuckmann, Katharina, Fendler, Wolfgang Peter, Herrmann, Ken, Buchbender, Christian, Antoch, Gerald, Umutlu, Lale, Kirchner, Julian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8803812/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34476552
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05502-0
_version_ 1784642950138953728
author Morawitz, Janna
Bruckmann, Nils-Martin
Dietzel, Frederic
Ullrich, Tim
Bittner, Ann-Kathrin
Hoffmann, Oliver
Ruckhäberle, Eugen
Mohrmann, Svjetlana
Häberle, Lena
Ingenwerth, Marc
Abrar, Daniel Benjamin
Sawicki, Lino Morris
Breuckmann, Katharina
Fendler, Wolfgang Peter
Herrmann, Ken
Buchbender, Christian
Antoch, Gerald
Umutlu, Lale
Kirchner, Julian
author_facet Morawitz, Janna
Bruckmann, Nils-Martin
Dietzel, Frederic
Ullrich, Tim
Bittner, Ann-Kathrin
Hoffmann, Oliver
Ruckhäberle, Eugen
Mohrmann, Svjetlana
Häberle, Lena
Ingenwerth, Marc
Abrar, Daniel Benjamin
Sawicki, Lino Morris
Breuckmann, Katharina
Fendler, Wolfgang Peter
Herrmann, Ken
Buchbender, Christian
Antoch, Gerald
Umutlu, Lale
Kirchner, Julian
author_sort Morawitz, Janna
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare CT, MRI, and [(18)F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ([(18)F]-FDG PET/MRI) for nodal status, regarding quantity and location of metastatic locoregional lymph nodes in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred eighty-two patients (mean age 52.7 ± 11.9 years) were included in this prospective double-center study. Patients underwent dedicated contrast-enhanced chest/abdomen/pelvis computed tomography (CT) and whole-body ([(18)F]-FDG PET/) magnet resonance imaging (MRI). Thoracal datasets were evaluated separately regarding quantity, lymph node station (axillary levels I–III, supraclavicular, internal mammary chain), and lesion character (benign vs. malign). Histopathology served as reference standard for patient-based analysis. Patient-based and lesion-based analyses were compared by a McNemar test. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy were assessed for all three imaging modalities. RESULTS: On a patient-based analysis, PET/MRI correctly detected significantly more nodal positive patients than MRI (p < 0.0001) and CT (p < 0.0001). No statistically significant difference was seen between CT and MRI. PET/MRI detected 193 lesions in 75 patients (41.2%), while MRI detected 123 lesions in 56 patients (30.8%) and CT detected 104 lesions in 50 patients, respectively. Differences were statistically significant on a lesion-based analysis (PET/MRI vs. MRI, p < 0.0001; PET/MRI vs. CT, p < 0.0001; MRI vs. CT, p = 0.015). Subgroup analysis for different lymph node stations showed that PET/MRI detected significantly more lymph node metastases than MRI and CT in each location (axillary levels I–III, supraclavicular, mammary internal chain). MRI was superior to CT only in axillary level I (p = 0.0291). CONCLUSION: [(18)F]-FDG PET/MRI outperforms CT or MRI in detecting nodal involvement on a patient-based analysis and on a lesion-based analysis. Furthermore, PET/MRI was superior to CT or MRI in detecting lymph node metastases in all lymph node stations. Of all the tested imaging modalities, PET/MRI showed the highest sensitivity, whereas CT showed the lowest sensitivity, but was most specific.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8803812
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88038122022-02-02 Comparison of nodal staging between CT, MRI, and [(18)F]-FDG PET/MRI in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer Morawitz, Janna Bruckmann, Nils-Martin Dietzel, Frederic Ullrich, Tim Bittner, Ann-Kathrin Hoffmann, Oliver Ruckhäberle, Eugen Mohrmann, Svjetlana Häberle, Lena Ingenwerth, Marc Abrar, Daniel Benjamin Sawicki, Lino Morris Breuckmann, Katharina Fendler, Wolfgang Peter Herrmann, Ken Buchbender, Christian Antoch, Gerald Umutlu, Lale Kirchner, Julian Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Original Article PURPOSE: To compare CT, MRI, and [(18)F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ([(18)F]-FDG PET/MRI) for nodal status, regarding quantity and location of metastatic locoregional lymph nodes in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred eighty-two patients (mean age 52.7 ± 11.9 years) were included in this prospective double-center study. Patients underwent dedicated contrast-enhanced chest/abdomen/pelvis computed tomography (CT) and whole-body ([(18)F]-FDG PET/) magnet resonance imaging (MRI). Thoracal datasets were evaluated separately regarding quantity, lymph node station (axillary levels I–III, supraclavicular, internal mammary chain), and lesion character (benign vs. malign). Histopathology served as reference standard for patient-based analysis. Patient-based and lesion-based analyses were compared by a McNemar test. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy were assessed for all three imaging modalities. RESULTS: On a patient-based analysis, PET/MRI correctly detected significantly more nodal positive patients than MRI (p < 0.0001) and CT (p < 0.0001). No statistically significant difference was seen between CT and MRI. PET/MRI detected 193 lesions in 75 patients (41.2%), while MRI detected 123 lesions in 56 patients (30.8%) and CT detected 104 lesions in 50 patients, respectively. Differences were statistically significant on a lesion-based analysis (PET/MRI vs. MRI, p < 0.0001; PET/MRI vs. CT, p < 0.0001; MRI vs. CT, p = 0.015). Subgroup analysis for different lymph node stations showed that PET/MRI detected significantly more lymph node metastases than MRI and CT in each location (axillary levels I–III, supraclavicular, mammary internal chain). MRI was superior to CT only in axillary level I (p = 0.0291). CONCLUSION: [(18)F]-FDG PET/MRI outperforms CT or MRI in detecting nodal involvement on a patient-based analysis and on a lesion-based analysis. Furthermore, PET/MRI was superior to CT or MRI in detecting lymph node metastases in all lymph node stations. Of all the tested imaging modalities, PET/MRI showed the highest sensitivity, whereas CT showed the lowest sensitivity, but was most specific. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-09-03 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8803812/ /pubmed/34476552 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05502-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Morawitz, Janna
Bruckmann, Nils-Martin
Dietzel, Frederic
Ullrich, Tim
Bittner, Ann-Kathrin
Hoffmann, Oliver
Ruckhäberle, Eugen
Mohrmann, Svjetlana
Häberle, Lena
Ingenwerth, Marc
Abrar, Daniel Benjamin
Sawicki, Lino Morris
Breuckmann, Katharina
Fendler, Wolfgang Peter
Herrmann, Ken
Buchbender, Christian
Antoch, Gerald
Umutlu, Lale
Kirchner, Julian
Comparison of nodal staging between CT, MRI, and [(18)F]-FDG PET/MRI in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer
title Comparison of nodal staging between CT, MRI, and [(18)F]-FDG PET/MRI in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer
title_full Comparison of nodal staging between CT, MRI, and [(18)F]-FDG PET/MRI in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer
title_fullStr Comparison of nodal staging between CT, MRI, and [(18)F]-FDG PET/MRI in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of nodal staging between CT, MRI, and [(18)F]-FDG PET/MRI in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer
title_short Comparison of nodal staging between CT, MRI, and [(18)F]-FDG PET/MRI in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer
title_sort comparison of nodal staging between ct, mri, and [(18)f]-fdg pet/mri in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8803812/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34476552
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05502-0
work_keys_str_mv AT morawitzjanna comparisonofnodalstagingbetweenctmriand18ffdgpetmriinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedbreastcancer
AT bruckmannnilsmartin comparisonofnodalstagingbetweenctmriand18ffdgpetmriinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedbreastcancer
AT dietzelfrederic comparisonofnodalstagingbetweenctmriand18ffdgpetmriinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedbreastcancer
AT ullrichtim comparisonofnodalstagingbetweenctmriand18ffdgpetmriinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedbreastcancer
AT bittnerannkathrin comparisonofnodalstagingbetweenctmriand18ffdgpetmriinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedbreastcancer
AT hoffmannoliver comparisonofnodalstagingbetweenctmriand18ffdgpetmriinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedbreastcancer
AT ruckhaberleeugen comparisonofnodalstagingbetweenctmriand18ffdgpetmriinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedbreastcancer
AT mohrmannsvjetlana comparisonofnodalstagingbetweenctmriand18ffdgpetmriinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedbreastcancer
AT haberlelena comparisonofnodalstagingbetweenctmriand18ffdgpetmriinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedbreastcancer
AT ingenwerthmarc comparisonofnodalstagingbetweenctmriand18ffdgpetmriinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedbreastcancer
AT abrardanielbenjamin comparisonofnodalstagingbetweenctmriand18ffdgpetmriinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedbreastcancer
AT sawickilinomorris comparisonofnodalstagingbetweenctmriand18ffdgpetmriinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedbreastcancer
AT breuckmannkatharina comparisonofnodalstagingbetweenctmriand18ffdgpetmriinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedbreastcancer
AT fendlerwolfgangpeter comparisonofnodalstagingbetweenctmriand18ffdgpetmriinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedbreastcancer
AT herrmannken comparisonofnodalstagingbetweenctmriand18ffdgpetmriinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedbreastcancer
AT buchbenderchristian comparisonofnodalstagingbetweenctmriand18ffdgpetmriinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedbreastcancer
AT antochgerald comparisonofnodalstagingbetweenctmriand18ffdgpetmriinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedbreastcancer
AT umutlulale comparisonofnodalstagingbetweenctmriand18ffdgpetmriinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedbreastcancer
AT kirchnerjulian comparisonofnodalstagingbetweenctmriand18ffdgpetmriinpatientswithnewlydiagnosedbreastcancer