Home > Journals > The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging > Past Issues > The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2006 March;50(1) > The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2006 March;50(1):61-7

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING

A Journal on Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging


A Journal on Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Affiliated to the Society of Radiopharmaceutical Sciences and to the International Research Group of Immunoscintigraphy
Indexed/Abstracted in: Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,413


eTOC

 

  PET/CT


The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2006 March;50(1):61-7

language: English

A retrospective analysis of the impact of 18F-FDG PET scans on clinical management of 133 breast cancer patients

Santiago J. F. Y. 1, Gonen M. 2, Yeung H. 3, Macapinlac H. 4, Larson S. 3

1 PET Center, St. Luke’s Medical Center Quezon City, Philippines
2 Biostatistics Service Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center New York, NY, USA
3 Nuclear Medicine Service Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center New York, NY, USA
4 Section of PET, Department of Nuclear Medicine UTMD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA


FULL TEXT  


Aim. While it is well-known that there is 18F-FDG uptake in breast tumors, clinical impact of 18F-FDG PET in managing breast cancer patients is not well-studied.
Methods. One hundred and thirty-three consecutive breast cancer patients from May 1996 to June 2000 were studied. All patients were treated and being followed. Reasons of referral included equivocal conventional studies, staging/re-staging, clinical suspicion of recurrence, and elevated serum tumor markers. Clinical status at 6 months postPET is used as the gold standard in lesions of worsening versus stable or improving.
Results. PET was 69% sensitive and 80% specific in predicting clinical stage at 6 months. This 69% of the patients who got worse at 6 months was PET positive and 80% of the patients who were stable or improving at 6 months were PET negative. There was a significant association between PET results and clinical outcome, after adjusting for stage of disease (P=0.04), or for the treatment patients received (P<0.01). Negative PET results changed therapy as often as positive ones did. PET influenced treatment decisions in 74% of the patients referred for study.
Conclusion. PET holds promise as a sensitive and specific modality in following treated breast cancer patients. PET results contain information on 6 month outcome that is independent of stage or past treatment and influence patient management.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail