[18F]FDG in recurrent breast cancer: Diagnostic performances, clinical impact and relevance of induced changes in management

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 179-188

  Grahek, Dany ^a,b   Montravers, Françoise ^a,b   Kerrou, Khaldoun ^a,b   Aide, Nicolas ^a,b   Lotz, Jean Pierre ^a   Talbot, Jean Noël ^a,b  

^a HÔPITAL TENON   (France)

^b SORBONNE UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose; Gamma camera PET; Patient management; Recurrence

Indexed keywords

FLUCIS; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROGNOSIS; RECURRENT CANCER; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCINTILLATION CAMERA; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VALIDATION PROCESS; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT CARE; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCINTISCANNING; TUMOR RECURRENCE; VALIDATION STUDY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; PATIENT CARE MANAGEMENT; PROGNOSIS; RADIONUCLIDE IMAGING; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, EMISSION-COMPUTED;

EID: 0842290763     PISSN: 16197070     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-003-1348-1     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Nemoto T, Vana J, Bedwani R, Baker HW, McGregor FH, Murphy GP. Management and survival of female breast cancer: results of a national survey by the American College of Surgeons. Cancer 1980; 45:2917-2924.
2. Saphner T, Tormey DC, Gray R. Annual hazard rates of recurrence for breast cancer after primary therapy. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14:2738-2746.
3. Morris S, Corder AP, Taylor I. What are the benefits of routine breast cancer follow-up? Postgrad Med J 1992; 68:904-907.
4. Kagan AR, Steckel RJ. Routine imaging for the posttreatment surveillance of breast and colorectal carcinoma, J Clin Oncol 1991; 9:837-842.
5. Dose J, Bleckmann C, Bachmann S, Bohuslavizki KH, Berger J, Jenicke L, Habermann CR, Jänicke F. Comparison of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and "conventional diagnostic procedure" for the detection of distant metastases in breast cancer patients. Nucl Med Commun 2002; 23:857-864.
6. Suarez M, Perez-Castejon MJ, Jimenez A, Domper M, Ruiz G, Montz R, Carreras JL. Early diagnosis of recurrent breast cancer with FDG-PET in patients with progressive elevation of serum tumor markers. Q J Nucl Med 2002; 46:113-121.
7. 18Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to detect mediastinal or internal mammary metastases in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19:3516-3523.
8. Bender H, Kirst J, Palmedo H, Schomburg A, Wagner U, Ruhlmann J, Biersack HJ. Value of 18fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the staging of recurrent breast carcinoma. Anticancer Res 1997; 17:1687-1692.
9. Kadrmas DJ, Christian PE. Comparative evaluation of lesion detectability for 6 PET imaging platforms using a highly reproductible whole-body phantom with 22Na. Lesions and localization ROC analysis. J Nucl Med 2002; 43:1545-1554.
10. 18F-FDG PET on staging and managing patients with breast cancer: the referring physician's perspective. J Nucl Med 2001; 42:1334-1337.
11. Yutani K, Tatsumi M, Shiba E, Kusuoka H, Nishimura T. Comparison of dual-head coincidence gamma camera FDG imaging with FDG PET in detection of breast cancer and axillary lymph node metastasis. J Nucl Med 1999; 40:1003-1008.
12. Grosev D, Loncaric S, Vandenberghe S, Dodig D. Triple-head gamma camera PET: system overview and performance characteristics. Nucl Med Commun 2002; 23:809-814.
13. Boerner AR, Weckesser M, Herzog H, Schmitz T, Audretsch W, Nitz U, Bender HG, Mueller-Gaertner HW. Optimal scan time for fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 1999; 26:226-236.
14. Bleckmann C, Dose J, Bohuslavizki KH, Buchert R, Klutmann S, Mester J, Jänicke F, Clausen M. Effect of attenuation correction on lesion detectability in FDG PET of breast cancer. J Nucl Med 1999; 40:2021-2024.
15. Torizuka T, Zasadny KR, Recker B, Wahl RL. Untreated primary lung and breast cancers: correlation between F-18 FDG kinetic rate constants and findings of in vitro studies. Radiology 1998; 207:767-774.
16. Landoni C, Gianolli L, Lucignani G, Savi A, Travaini L, Gilardi MC, Fazio F. Comparison of dual-head coincidence PET versus ring PET in tumor patients. J Nucl Med 1999; 40:1617-1622.
17. Gambhir SS, Czermin J, Schwimmer J, Silverman DHS, Coleman RE, Phelps ME. A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature. J Nucl Med 2001; 42:1S-93S.
18. Lonneux M, Borbath I, Berlière M, Kirkove C, Pauwels S. The place of whole-body PET FDG for the diagnosis of distant recurrence of breast cancer. Clin Positron Imaging 2000; 3:45-49.
19. Kim TS, Moon WK, Lee DS, Chung JK, Lee MC, Youn YK, Oh SK, Choe KJ, Noh DY. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for detection of recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. World J Surg 2001; 25:829-834.
20. 18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with suspected recurrence of the breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2003; 129:147-153.
21. Delbeke D, Martin WH, Patton JA, Sandler MP. Value of iterative reconstruction, attenuation correction, and image fusion in the interpretation of FDG PET images with and integrated dual-head coincidence camera and X-ray-based attenuation maps. Radiology 2001; 218:163-171.
22. Bagley, FH, Walsh JW, Cady B, Salzman FA, Oberfield RA, Pazianos AG. Carcinomatous versus radiation-induced brachial plexus neuropathy in breast cancer. Cancer 1978; 41:2154-2157.
23. Eubank WB, Mankoff DA, Schmiedl UP, Winter TC3rd, Fisher ER, Olshen AB, Graham MM, Eary JF. Imaging of oncologic patients: benefit of combined CT and FDG PET in the diagnosis of malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 17:1103-1110.
24. Pecking AP, Mechelany-Corone C, Bertrand-Kermorgant F, Albertini JL, Florias JL, Goupil A, Pichon MF. Detection of occult disease in breast cancer using fluorodeoxyglucose camera-based positron emission tomography. Clin Breast Cancer 2001; 2:229-234.
25. Kokko R, Holli K, Hakama M. Ca 15.3 in the follow-up of localised breast cancer a prospective study. Eur J Cancer 2002; 38:1189-1193.
26. Colomer R, Ruibal A, Genolla J, Rubio D, Del Campo JM, Bodi R, Salvador L. Circulating CA 15-3 levels in the postsurgical follow-up of breast cancer patients and in non-malignant diseases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1989; 13:123-133.
27. Crippa F, Leutner M, Belli F, Gallino F, Greco M, Pilotti S, Cascinelli N, Bombardieri E. Which kinds of lymph node metastases can FDG PET detect? A clinical study in melanoma. J Nucl Med 2001; 41:1491-1494.
28. Rose PG, Faulhaber P, Miraldi F, Abdul-Karim FW. Positive emission tomography for evaluating a complete clinical response in patients with ovarian or peritoneal carcinoma: correlation with second-look laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol 2001; 82:17-21.
29. Berger KL, Nicholson SA, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA. FDG PET evaluation of mucinous neoplasms: correlation of FDG uptake with histopathologic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174:1005-1008.
30. Maldonado A, Sancho F, Calvo FA, Lopez N, Perez Carrion R, Gonzalez Baron M, Trampal C, Ortega F. The role of FDG-PET in diagnosing suspected tumor recurrence based on increased levels of markers. Clin Positron Imaging 1998; 1: 246.
31. Committee for Proprietary Medical Products (CPMP). Points to consider on the evaluation of diagnostic agents. EMEA. Heidelberg Berlin New YorkSpringer, 2001: CPMP/EWP/1119/98.