Cargando…
Head-to-Head Comparison between (18)F-FES PET/CT and (18)F-FDG PET/CT in Oestrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
(18)F-FDG PET/CT is a powerful diagnostic tool in breast cancer (BC). However, it might have a reduced sensitivity in differentiated, oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+) BC. In this setting, specific molecular imaging with fluorine-oestradiol ((18)F-FES) PET/CT could help in overcoming these limitatio...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8999922/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35407526 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11071919 |
_version_ | 1784685306975354880 |
---|---|
author | Piccardo, Arnoldo Fiz, Francesco Treglia, Giorgio Bottoni, Gianluca Trimboli, Pierpaolo |
author_facet | Piccardo, Arnoldo Fiz, Francesco Treglia, Giorgio Bottoni, Gianluca Trimboli, Pierpaolo |
author_sort | Piccardo, Arnoldo |
collection | PubMed |
description | (18)F-FDG PET/CT is a powerful diagnostic tool in breast cancer (BC). However, it might have a reduced sensitivity in differentiated, oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+) BC. In this setting, specific molecular imaging with fluorine-oestradiol ((18)F-FES) PET/CT could help in overcoming these limitations; however, the literature on the diagnostic accuracy of this method is limited. We therefore planned this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare (18)F-FDG and (18)F-FES PET/CT in ER+ BC patients. We performed a literature search to identify all studies performing a head-to-head comparison between the two methods; we excluded review articles, preclinical studies, case reports and small case series. Finally, seven studies were identified (overall: 171 patients; range: 7–49 patients). A patients-based analysis (PBA) showed that (18)F-FDG and (18)F-FES PET/CT had a similar high pooled sensitivity (97% and 94%, respectively) at the lesion-based analysis (LBA), (18)F-FES performed slightly better than (18)F-FDG (pooled sensitivity: 95% vs. 85%, respectively). Moreover, when we considered only the studies dealing with the restaging setting (n = 3), this difference in sensitivity was even more marked (98% vs. 81%, respectively). In conclusion, both tracers feature an excellent sensitivity in ER+ BC; however, (18)F-FES PET/CT could be preferred in the restaging setting. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8999922 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89999222022-04-12 Head-to-Head Comparison between (18)F-FES PET/CT and (18)F-FDG PET/CT in Oestrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Piccardo, Arnoldo Fiz, Francesco Treglia, Giorgio Bottoni, Gianluca Trimboli, Pierpaolo J Clin Med Review (18)F-FDG PET/CT is a powerful diagnostic tool in breast cancer (BC). However, it might have a reduced sensitivity in differentiated, oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+) BC. In this setting, specific molecular imaging with fluorine-oestradiol ((18)F-FES) PET/CT could help in overcoming these limitations; however, the literature on the diagnostic accuracy of this method is limited. We therefore planned this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare (18)F-FDG and (18)F-FES PET/CT in ER+ BC patients. We performed a literature search to identify all studies performing a head-to-head comparison between the two methods; we excluded review articles, preclinical studies, case reports and small case series. Finally, seven studies were identified (overall: 171 patients; range: 7–49 patients). A patients-based analysis (PBA) showed that (18)F-FDG and (18)F-FES PET/CT had a similar high pooled sensitivity (97% and 94%, respectively) at the lesion-based analysis (LBA), (18)F-FES performed slightly better than (18)F-FDG (pooled sensitivity: 95% vs. 85%, respectively). Moreover, when we considered only the studies dealing with the restaging setting (n = 3), this difference in sensitivity was even more marked (98% vs. 81%, respectively). In conclusion, both tracers feature an excellent sensitivity in ER+ BC; however, (18)F-FES PET/CT could be preferred in the restaging setting. MDPI 2022-03-30 /pmc/articles/PMC8999922/ /pubmed/35407526 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11071919 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Piccardo, Arnoldo Fiz, Francesco Treglia, Giorgio Bottoni, Gianluca Trimboli, Pierpaolo Head-to-Head Comparison between (18)F-FES PET/CT and (18)F-FDG PET/CT in Oestrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title | Head-to-Head Comparison between (18)F-FES PET/CT and (18)F-FDG PET/CT in Oestrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_full | Head-to-Head Comparison between (18)F-FES PET/CT and (18)F-FDG PET/CT in Oestrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_fullStr | Head-to-Head Comparison between (18)F-FES PET/CT and (18)F-FDG PET/CT in Oestrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Head-to-Head Comparison between (18)F-FES PET/CT and (18)F-FDG PET/CT in Oestrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_short | Head-to-Head Comparison between (18)F-FES PET/CT and (18)F-FDG PET/CT in Oestrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_sort | head-to-head comparison between (18)f-fes pet/ct and (18)f-fdg pet/ct in oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8999922/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35407526 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11071919 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT piccardoarnoldo headtoheadcomparisonbetween18ffespetctand18ffdgpetctinoestrogenreceptorpositivebreastcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT fizfrancesco headtoheadcomparisonbetween18ffespetctand18ffdgpetctinoestrogenreceptorpositivebreastcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT tregliagiorgio headtoheadcomparisonbetween18ffespetctand18ffdgpetctinoestrogenreceptorpositivebreastcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT bottonigianluca headtoheadcomparisonbetween18ffespetctand18ffdgpetctinoestrogenreceptorpositivebreastcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT trimbolipierpaolo headtoheadcomparisonbetween18ffespetctand18ffdgpetctinoestrogenreceptorpositivebreastcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |