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

Response Monitoring in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Prospective Study Comparing F-FDG PET/CT with Conventional CT. | LitMetric

This study aimed to compare contrast-enhanced CT (CE-CT) and F-FDG PET/CT for response monitoring in metastatic breast cancer using the standardized response evaluation criteria RECIST 1.1 and PERCIST. The objective was to examine whether progressive disease was detected systematically earlier by one of the modalities. Women with biopsy-verified metastatic breast cancer were enrolled prospectively and monitored using combined CE-CT and F-FDG PET/CT every 9-12 wk to evaluate response to first-line treatment. CE-CT scans and RECIST 1.1 were used for clinical decision-making without accessing the F-FDG PET/CT scans. At study completion, F-FDG PET/CT scans were unmasked and assessed according to PERCIST. Visual assessment was used if response criteria could not be applied. The modality-specific time to progression was defined as the time from the baseline scan until the first scan demonstrating progression. Paired comparative analyses for CE-CT versus F-FDG PET/CT were applied, and the primary endpoint was earlier detection of progression by one modality. Secondary endpoints were time to detection of progression, response categorization, visualization of changes in response over time, and measurable disease according to RECIST and PERCIST. In total, 87 women were evaluable, with a median of 6 (1-11) follow-up scans. Progression was detected first by F-FDG PET/CT in 43 (49.4%) of 87 patients and first by CE-CT in 1 (1.15%) of 87 patients ( < 0.0001). Excluding patients without progression ( = 32), progression was seen first on F-FDG PET/CT in 78.2% (43/55) of patients. The median time from detection of progression by F-FDG PET/CT to that of CE-CT was 6 mo (95% CI, 4.3-6.4 mo). At baseline, 76 (87.4%) of 87 patients had measurable disease according to PERCIST and 51 (58.6%) of 87 patients had measurable disease according to RECIST 1.1. Moreover, F-FDG PET/CT provided improved visualization of changes in response over time, as seen in the graphical abstract. Disease progression was detected earlier by F-FDG PET/CT than by CE-CT in most patients, with a potentially clinically relevant median 6-mo delay for CE-CT. More patients had measurable disease according to PERCIST than according to RECIST 1.1. The magnitude of the final benefit for patients is a perspective for future research.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10071809PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.121.263358DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

f-fdg pet/ct
28
metastatic breast
12
breast cancer
12
response monitoring
8
monitoring metastatic
8
ce-ct f-fdg
8
recist percist
8
pet/ct scans
8
detection progression
8
response
7

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!