Article

Defining the role of PET-CT in staging early breast cancer.

Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
The Oncologist (Impact Factor: 4.1). 04/2012; 17(5):613-9. DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0270
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Currently, there is a lack of data on the role of combined positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) in the staging of early invasive primary breast cancer. We therefore evaluated the role of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG)-PET-CT in this patient population.
We prospectively recruited 70 consecutive patients (69 women, one man; mean age, 61.9 ± 8.1 years) with early primary breast cancer for staging with (18)F-FDG-PET-CT. All PET-CT images were interpreted by two readers (independently of each other). A third reader adjudicated any discrepancies. All readers had ≥5 years of specific experience. Ethics board approval and informed consent were obtained.
The mean clinical follow-up was 22.7 ± 12.6 months. The primary tumor was identified with PET-CT in 64 of 70 patients. Of the unidentified lesions, surgical pathology revealed two intraductal carcinomas, one invasive tubular carcinoma, and three invasive lobular carcinomas. Undiagnosed multifocal breast disease was shown in seven of 70 patients. PET-CT identified avid axillary lymph nodes in 19 of 70 patients, compared with 24 of 70 confirmed during surgery. There were four patients who were axillary node positive on PET but had no axillary disease at surgery. Five patients were reported with avid metastases. Two of those patients were treated for metastatic disease (nodal, lung, and liver in one and bone metastases in the other) following further imaging and clinical assessment. In the other three patients, lesions (lung, n = 1; pleural, n = 1; paratrachael node, n = 1) were subsequently diagnosed as benign lesions.
Integrated (18)F-FDG-PET-CT may have a role in staging patients presenting with early breast cancer.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
98 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is widely believed by both doctors and patients that regular follow-up with imaging is important for patients who have been treated for early breast cancer. In reality, current evidence does not support this. Randomised trials have shown no benefit for intensive versus routine follow-up and studies have also shown that follow-up by a general practitioner or nurse specialist is likely to be as effective as by a breast cancer specialist. Specifically there is no evidence that specialised imaging including PET/CT is of any benefit. Newer approaches including the assessment of circulating tumour cells and/or circulating tumour DNA may eventually prove advantageous, but currently must be considered experimental. In summary, current evidence suggests that there is no basis for intensive follow-up beyond standard regular clinical assessment and annual mammography following treatment of early breast cancer. There may be better models for follow-up than the traditional resource-intensive hospital outpatient visit, including nurse-led open access follow-up. Monitoring for long-term sequelae of treatment is becoming as important as the detection of recurrence in an era where long-term survival is increasingly common.
    Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) 08/2013; 22S2:S156-S160. · 2.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although positron emission tomography (PET) imaging may not be used in the diagnosis of breast cancer, the use of PET/computed tomography is imperative in all aspects of breast cancer staging, treatment, and follow-up. PET will continue to be relevant in personalized medicine because accurate tumor status will be even more critical during and after the transition from a generic metabolic agent to receptor imaging. Positron emission mammography is an imaging proposition that may have benefits in lower doses, but its use is limited without new radiopharmaceuticals.
    Radiologic Clinics of North America 09/2013; 51(5):781-98. · 1.95 Impact Factor
  • Source
    European Journal of Nuclear Medicine 09/2012; · 4.53 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
46 Downloads
Available from
May 23, 2014