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
Unlabelled: Our objective was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of an all-in-one protocol of whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT and integrated 18F-FDG PET/CT mammography with the diagnostic accuracy of a multimodality algorithm for initial breast cancer staging.
Methods: Forty women (mean age, 58.3 y; range, 30.8-78.4 y; SD, 12 y) with suspected breast cancer were included. For the primary tumor, we compared 18F-FDG PET/CT mammography versus MRI mammography; for axillary lymph node status, 18F-FDG PET/CT versus clinical investigation and ultrasound; and for distant metastases, 18F-FDG PET/CT versus a multimodality staging algorithm. Histopathology and clinical follow-up served as the standard of reference. The Fisher exact test evaluated the significance of differences (P < 0.05). Alterations in patient management caused by 18F-FDG PET/CT were documented.
Results: No significant differences were found in the detection rate of breast cancer lesions (18F-FDG PET/CT, 95%; MRI, 100%; P = 1). 18F-FDG PET/CT correctly classified lesion focality significantly more often than did MRI (18F-FDG PET/CT, 79%; MRI, 73%; P < 0.001). MRI correctly defined the T stage significantly more often than did 18F-FDG PET/CT (MRI, 77%; 18F-FDG PET/CT, 54%; P = 0.001). 18F-FDG PET/CT detected axillary lymph node metastases in 80% of cases; clinical investigation/ultrasound, in 70%. This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.067). Distant metastases were detected with 18F-FDG PET/CT in 100% of cases, and the multimodality algorithm identified distant metastases in 70%. This difference was not statistically significant (P = 1). Three patients had extraaxillary lymph node metastases that were detected only by PET/CT (cervical, retroperitoneal, mediastinal/internal mammary group). 18F-FDG PET/CT changed patient management in 12.5% of cases.
Conclusion: Our data suggest that a whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT mammography protocol may be used for staging breast cancer in a single session. This initial assessment of the 18F-FDG PET/CT protocol indicates similar accuracy to MRI for the detection of breast cancer lesions. Although MRI seems to be more accurate when assessing the T stage of the tumor, 18F-FDG PET/CT seems able to more accurately define lesion focality. Although 18F-FDG PET/CT mammography was able to detect axillary lymph node metastases with a high sensitivity, this method cannot soon be expected to replace the combination of clinical examination, ultrasound, and sentinel lymph node biopsy for axillary assessment.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.052050 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!