Role of PET/CT in Breast Cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 106 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 35-35
Author(s):  
Z.A. Ali ◽  
M.S. Abdullah ◽  
M.M. Houseni ◽  
D.H. Hashem

Introduction: Breast cancer is the most common cancer type in women and the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in women worldwide. F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PET/CT) is widely used in the initial staging, evaluation of the therapeutic response, and detection of recurrent disease. However, with the increasing use of FDG PET/CT, sites of increased activity have been occasionally discovered in unexpected locations which may not correlate with the patient’s clinical history or the expected spread of the primary malignancy. The aim of this study is to detect the diagnostic value of PET/CT in breast cancer patients; comparing PET/CT performance with that of contrast enhanced CT in diagnosis of breast cancer and distant metastasis. Material and Methods: A prospective study carried out at National liver institute –Menoufia University from January 2016 to December 2017. It included 30 female patients. All patients had pathologically confirmed breast cancer. All patients underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT examination. Patients fasting for about 6 hours before study, then 370–550 MBq of 18F-FDG was injected. Approximately after 60 min from injection, PET/CT scans were performed. Following PET imaging, volumetric contrast enhanced CT scanning was performed from skull base to mid-thigh on the same PET/CT machine. Images were reconstructed and viewed on workstation. Results: The study included 30 female patients with breast cancer, mean age: 53.56 years ±10.64 (SD), age range: 33-73years. Detection of contralateral breast affection in 2 patients (6.7%) and distant metastasis were seen on PET/CT. Sites of distant metastasis included: bone (n=12), axillary lymph nodes (n=11), cervical lymph nodes (n=6), mediastinal lymph nodes (n=12), abdominal lymph nodes (n=8), liver (n=5), lung (n=11) and other visceral sites metastasis (n=9).PET/CT detected breast lesions with a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 95.4%. In contrast, the sensitivity and specificity of CT alone were 81.2% and 90.4% respectively. Conclusion: PET/CT has superiority over CT alone in detecting breast lesions and distant metastases.

2013 ◽  
Vol 40 (8) ◽  
pp. 1206-1213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence Champion ◽  
Florence Lerebours ◽  
Pascal Cherel ◽  
Veronique Edeline ◽  
Anne-Laure Giraudet ◽  
...  

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 1198
Author(s):  
Jean-Baptiste Le Goubey ◽  
Charline Lasnon ◽  
Ines Nakouri ◽  
Laure Césaire ◽  
Michel de Pontville ◽  
...  

Aim: To perform a comprehensive analysis of discordances between contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of the extra-cerebral treatment monitoring in patients with stage IV melanoma. Materials and methods: We conducted a retrospective monocentric observational study over a 3-year period in patients referred for 18F-FDG PET/CT and ceCT in the framework of therapy monitoring of immune checkpoint (ICIs) as of January 2017. Imaging reports were analyzed by two physicians in consensus. The anatomical site responsible for discordances, as well as induced changes in treatment were noted. Results: Eighty patients were included and 195 pairs of scans analyzed. Overall, discordances occurred in 65 cases (33%). Eighty percent of the discordances (52/65) were due to 18F-FDG PET/CT scans upstaging the patient. Amongst these discordances, 17/52 (33%) led to change in patient’s management, the most frequent being radiotherapy of a progressing site. ceCT represented 13/65 (20%) of discordances and induced changes in patients’ management in 2/13 cases (15%). The most frequent anatomical site involved was subcutaneous for 18F-FDG PET/CT findings and lung or liver for ceCT. Conclusions: Treatment monitoring with 18F-FDG PET/CT is more efficient than ceCT and has a greater impact in patient’s management.


2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 472-477 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edwin E.G.W. ter Voert ◽  
Hanneke W.M. van Laarhoven ◽  
Peter J.M. Kok ◽  
Wim J.G. Oyen ◽  
Eric P. Visser ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 157 (3) ◽  
pp. 439-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua K. Cho ◽  
Thomas J. Ow ◽  
Andrew Y. Lee ◽  
Richard V. Smith ◽  
Nicolas F. Schlecht ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Guang-Yu Li ◽  
Ju-Lu Hong ◽  
Si-Yun Wang ◽  
Zhi Xie ◽  
En-Tao Liu ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. e149-e156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marn Joon Park ◽  
Jungsu S. Oh ◽  
Jong-Lyel Roh ◽  
Jae Seung Kim ◽  
Jeong Hyun Lee ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 453-459 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renaud Guignard ◽  
Marija Simukoniene ◽  
Valentina Garibotto ◽  
Osman Ratib

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (8) ◽  
pp. 595-605 ◽  
Author(s):  
Si-yun Wang ◽  
Shu-Xia Wang ◽  
Ji-qin Liao ◽  
Gang Chen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document