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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Piccardo, Arnoldo, Fiz, Francesco, Treglia, Giorgio, Bottoni, Gianluca, Trimboli, Pierpaolo
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