These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Evaluation of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/MRI, ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT, MRI, and CT in whole-body staging of recurrent breast cancer.
    Author: Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Buchbender C, Nagarajah J, Umutlu L, Antoch G, Kinner S.
    Journal: Eur J Radiol; 2016 Feb; 85(2):459-65. PubMed ID: 26781152.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic performance of (18)F-fluordesoxyglucose positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging ((18)F-FDG PET/MRI) with (18)F-FDG PET/computed tomography ((18)F-FDG PET/CT), MRI, and CT in whole-body staging of recurrent breast cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-one consecutive patients (age 59.4 ± 11.5 years, range 38.5-76.9 years; 20 female, 1 male) with suspected breast cancer recurrence underwent a clinically indicated (18)F-FDG PET/CT and subsequently a (18)F-FDG PET/MRI examination in a single injection protocol (mean injected activity: 257 ± 44 MBq (18)F-FDG). Each (18)F-FDG PET/MRI, (18)F-FDG PET/CT, as well as the CT component of PET/CT (CTPET/CT) and MR images of PET/MRI (MRIPET/MRI) were separately evaluated by two radiologists regarding lesion count, lesion localization, and lesion categorization (benign/malignant). The reference standard was based on histopathological results as well as prior and follow-up imaging. A Wilcoxon test assessed differences in SUVmax between (18)F-FDG PET/MRI and (18)F-FDG PET/CT. Correlation of SUVmax between (18)F-FDG PET/MRI and (18)F-FDG PET/CT was calculated using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Interobserver agreement on dignity ratings was evaluated using Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: According to the reference standard, 17 patients had breast cancer recurrence. (18)F-FDG PET/MRI, (18)F-FDG PET/CT, and MRIPET/MRI correctly identified each of the 17 patients, whereas CTPET/CT correctly identified 15 of the 17 patients. A total of 134 lesions were described (116 malignant, 18 benign). (18)F-FDG PET/MRI detected all 134 lesions, of which (18)F-FDG PET/CT, MRIPET/MRI, and CTPET/CT detected 97.0%, 96.2%, and 74.6%, respectively. (18)F-FDG PET/MRI yielded the highest proportion of correctly categorized lesions (98.5%) compared with (18)F-FDG PET/CT (94.8%), MRIPET/MRI (88.1%), and CTPET/CT (57.5%). SUVmax was strongly correlated (r=0.72) but measured significantly higher on (18)F-FDG PET/MRI than on (18)F-FDG PET/CT in corresponding PET-positive lesions (SUVmax: 5.6 ± 2.8 vs. 4.9 ± 1.8; p=0.001). Interobserver agreement on lesion dignity was substantial with (18)F-FDG PET/MRI (k=0.65; p<0.001) and (18)F-FDG PET/CT (k=0.65; p<0.001). With MRIPET/MRI interobserver analysis yielded a moderate agreement (k=0.56; p<0.001), whereas there was only fair agreement evaluating the CTPET/CT datasets (k=0.31; p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: (18)F-FDG PET/MRI offered the highest diagnostic performance compared with (18)F-FDG PET/CT, MRI and CT. Thus, (18)F-FDG PET/MRI should be regarded as a valuable alternative in whole-body staging of recurrent breast cancer.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]