A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Impact of PET/CT in comparison with same day contrast enhanced CT in breast cancer management. | LitMetric

Purpose: To evaluate the impact of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography with fused computerized tomography (PET/CT) in comparison with same day contrast enhanced CT (CE-CT) in breast cancer management.

Method: Seventy studies in 49 breast cancer patients, 17 for initial and 53 for restaging disease were included. All patients underwent PET/CT for diagnostic purposes followed by CE-CT scans of selected body regions. PET/CT was started approximately 90 minutes following IV injection of 10-15 mCi of F-18 FDG on a GE Discovery PET/CT system. Oral contrast was given before F-18 FDG injection. The CE-CT was performed according to departmental protocol.

Results: Out of a total of 257 lesions, 210 were concordant between PET/CT and CE-CT. There were 47 discordant lesions, which were verified by either biopsy (35) or follow-up (12 PET positive CE-CT negative lesions). PET/CT correctly identified 25 true positive (TP). CE-CT identified 2 TP lesions missed by PET/CT which were false negatives (FNs): one liver metastasis with necrosis, which was nonavid to FDG uptake because of necrosis and a second one missed on abdominal metastatic node, which did not change staging or treatment. PET/CT incorrectly identified 2 false positive lesions while CE-CT incorrectly identified 18 false positive. TP recurrence of the disease was found by PET/CT in 44% (15/34 pts), whereas 56% (19/34 pts) were free of disease. The CE-CT described progression of the disease in 1 true negative PET/CT study and no progression in 2 TP PET/CT studies. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive productive value, and negative productive value for PET/CT were 97.8%, 93.5%, 97.3%, 99.1%, 85% and for CE-CT were 87.6%, 42%, 82.1%, 91.6%, 31.7%.

Conclusion: In this study, PET/CT played a more important role than CE-CT scans alone and provided an impact on the management of breast cancer patients.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0b013e31805375e0DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

breast cancer
16
pet/ct
13
ce-ct
10
pet/ct comparison
8
comparison day
8
day contrast
8
contrast enhanced
8
cancer patients
8
ce-ct scans
8
f-18 fdg
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!