Could the serial determination of Ca15.3 serum improve the diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT? Results from small population with previous breast cancer

Annals of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 25, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 469-477

  Evangelista, Laura ^a   Baretta, Zora ^a   Vinante, Lorenzo ^a   Cervino, Anna Rita ^a   Gregianin, Michele ^a   Ghiotto, Cristina ^a   Bozza, Fernando ^a   Saladini, Giorgio ^a  

^a VENETO INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY IOV IRCCS   (Italy)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Ca15.3; Follow up; PET CT; Recurrence

Indexed keywords

AROMATASE INHIBITOR; CA 15-3 ANTIGEN; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; TAMOXIFEN; TRASTUZUMAB; TUMOR MARKER;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER HORMONE THERAPY; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER SURGERY; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELAPSE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; REVIEW;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BLOOD CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; MUCIN-1; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY AND COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RECURRENCE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 80052314259     PISSN: 09147187     EISSN: 18646433     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12149-011-0488-9     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. KL Cheung CR Graves JF Robertson 2000 Tumour marker measurement in the diagnosis and monitoring of breast cancer Cancer Treat Rev 26 91 92 10772967 10.1053/ctrv.1999.0151 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3c3jvVagsg%3D%3D (Pubitemid 30182241)
2. R Molina J Jo X Filella G Zanon J Pahisa M Muñoz, et al. 1995 Use of serial carcinoembryonic antigen and CA 15.3 assays in detecting relapses in breast cancer patients Breast Cancer Res Treat 36 41 48 7579505 10.1007/BF00690183 1:STN:280:DyaK28%2FnsFyitg%3D%3D
3. F Lumachi AA Brandes P Boccagni F Polistina G Favia DF D'Amico 1999 Long-term follow-up study in breast cancer patients using serum tumor markers CEA and CA 15.3 Anticancer Res 19 4485 4490 10650797 1:STN:280: DC%2BD3c7hs1GktQ%3D%3D
4. RF Collins HL Bekker DJ Dodwell 2004 Follow-up care of patients treated for breast cancer: a structured review Cancer Treat Rev 30 1 19 35 14766124 10.1016/S0305-7372(03)00141-5 (Pubitemid 38240086)
5. MJ Duffy 2006 Serum tumour markers in breast cancer: are they of clinical value? Clin Chem 52 3 345 351 16410341 10.1373/clinchem.2005.059832 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD28Xit1ShtrY%3D
6. R Colomer A Ruibal J Genollá D Rubio JM Del Campo R Bodi, et al. 1989 Circulating CA 15.3 levels in the post surgical follow-up of breast cancer patients and in non-malignant diseases Breast Cancer Res Treat 13 123 133 2730960 10.1007/BF01806524 1:STN:280:DyaL1M3nsVCitw%3D%3D (Pubitemid 19120104)
7. S Von Kleist E Bombardieri G Buraggi M Gion A Hertel G Hor, et al. 1993 Immunodiagnosis of tumours Eur J Cancer A 29 1622 1630 10.1016/0959-8049(93) 90309-4 (Pubitemid 23251811)
8. M Suárez MJ Pérez-Castejón A Jiménez M Domper G Ruiz R Montz, et al. 2002 Early diagnosis of recurrent breast cancer with FDG-PET in patients with progressive elevation of serum tumor markers Q J Nucl Med 46 113 121 12114874
9. Evangelista L, Baretta Z, Vinante L, Cervino AR, Gregianin M, Ghiotto C, et al. Tumour markers and FDG PET/CT for prediction of disease relapse in patients with breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:293-301.
10. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1-18.
11. Z Rabkin O Israel Z Keidar 2010 Do hyperglycemia and diabetes affect the incidence of false-negative 18F-FDG/CT studies in patients evaluated for infection or inflammation and cancer? A comparative analysis J Nucl Med 51 1015 1020 20554733 10.2967/jnumed.109.074294
12. Diamonds EP, Fritsche HA, Lilja H, Chau DW, Shwartz MK. Tumour markers. Physiology, pathobiology, technology and clinical applications. American Association of Clinical Chemistry; 2002.
13. G Soletormos D Nielsen V Schioler H Mouridsen P Dombernowsky 2004 Monitoring different stages of breast cancer using tumour markers CA 15.3, CEA and TPA Eur J Cancer 40 481 486 14962712 10.1016/j.ejca.2003.10.015 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2c%2FntlKhsw%3D%3D (Pubitemid 38220762)
14. M Given M Scott JP Mc Grath HF Given 2000 The predictive value of tumour markers Ca 15.3, TPS and CEA in breast cancer recurrence Breast 9 277 280 14732178 10.1054/brst.1999.0154 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2c%2FjtFKjuw%3D%3D
15. Anonymous. Clinical practice guidelines for the use of tumour markers in breast and colorectal cancer. Adopted on May 17, 1996 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:2843-77.
16. L Mariani R Miceli S Michilin M Gion 2009 Serial determination of CEA and CA 15.3 in breast cancer follow-up: an assessment of their diagnostic accuracy for the detection of tumour recurrence Biomarkers 14 2 130 136 19330591 10.1080/13547500902770090 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXmtV2msL8%3D
17. KF Hubner GT Smith JA Thie JL Bell HS Nelson WT Hanna 2000 The potential of 18F-FDG PET in breast cancer. Detection of primary lesions, axillary lymph node metastases, or distant metastases Clin Positron Imaging 3 197 205 11348848 10.1016/S1095-0397(00)00050-9
18. A Nicolini P Ferrari A Sagripanti A Carpi 1999 The role of tumour markers in predicting skeletal metastases in breast cancer patients with equivocal bone scintigraphy Br J Cancer 79 9-10 1443 1447 10188888 10.1038/sj.bjc.6690230 1:STN:280:DyaK1M3gt1Oksw%3D%3D (Pubitemid 29116802)
19. WB Eubank DA Mankoff J Takasugi H Vesselle JF Eary TJ Shanley, et al. 2001 18Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to detect mediastinal or internal mammary metastases in breast cancer J Clin Oncol 19 3516 3523 11481358 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MvjtlOmtQ%3D%3D (Pubitemid 32730089)
20. CR Isasi RM Moadel MD Blaufox 2005 A meta-analysis of FDG-PET for the evaluation of breast cancer recurrence and metastases Breast Cancer Res Treat 90 105 112 15803356 10.1007/s10549-004-3291-7 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXivVKhsrc%3D (Pubitemid 40568893)
21. TS Kim WK Moon DS Lee JK Chung MC Lee YK Youn, et al. 2001 Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for detection of recurrent or metastatic breast cancer World J Surg 25 829 834 11572019 10.1007/s002680020095 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MrisVCquw%3D%3D (Pubitemid 32666379)
22. BJ Fueger WA Weber A Quon TL Crawford MS Allen-Auerbach BS Halpern, et al. 2005 Performance of 2-deoxy-2-F-18-fluoro-d-glucose positron emission tomography and integrated PET/CT in restaged breast cancer patients Mol Imaging Biol 7 369 376 16220355 10.1007/s11307-005-0013-4 (Pubitemid 44193414)
23. GJ Cook S Houston R Rubens MN Maisey J Fogelman 1998 Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer by FDG PET. Differing metabolic activity in osteoblastic and osteolytic lesions J Clin Oncol 16 3375 3379 9779715 1:STN:280:DyaK1cvltV2qtw%3D%3D (Pubitemid 28481635)
24. OA Ogunbiyi FL Flanagan F Dehdashti BA Siegel DD Trask EH Birnbaum, et al. 1997 Detection of recurrent and metastatic colorectal cancer: comparison of positron emission tomography and computed tomography Ann Surg Oncol 4 613 620 9416407 10.1007/BF02303744 1:STN:280:DyaK1c%2FnvVelsQ%3D%3D (Pubitemid 127725488)
25. R Molina V Barak A van Dalen MJ Duffy R Einarsson M Gion, et al. 2005 Tumor markers in breast cancer-European Group on tumor markers recommendations Tumor Biol 26 281 293 10.1159/000089260 (Pubitemid 41619458)
26. M Gion P Barioli R Mione G Cappelli G Vignati A Fortunato, et al. 1995 Tumor markers in breast cancer follow-up: a potentially useful parameter still awaiting definitive assessment Ann Oncol 6 S31 S35