Publication:
Comparison of CE-FDG-PET/CT with CE-FDG-PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients

Thumbnail Image

Open/View Files

Date

2015

Published Version

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Nature Publishing Group
The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you.

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Citation

Catalano, O. A., E. Nicolai, B. R. Rosen, A. Luongo, M. Catalano, C. Iannace, A. Guimaraes, et al. 2015. “Comparison of CE-FDG-PET/CT with CE-FDG-PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients.” British Journal of Cancer 112 (9): 1452-1460. doi:10.1038/bjc.2015.112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.112.

Research Data

Abstract

Background: Despite improvements in treatments, metastatic breast cancer remains difficult to cure. Bones constitute the most common site of first-time recurrence, occurring in 40–75% of cases. Therefore, evaluation for possible osseous metastases is crucial. Technetium 99 (99Tc) bone scintigraphy and fluorodexossyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)-computed tomography (PET-CT) are the most commonly used techniques to assess osseous metastasis. PET magnetic resonance (PET-MR) imaging is an innovative technique still under investigation. We compared the capability of PET-MR to that of same-day PET-CT to assess osseous metastases in patients with breast cancer. Methods: One hundred and nine patients with breast cancer, who underwent same-day contrast enhanced (CE)-PET-CT and CE-PET-MR, were evaluated. CE-PET-CT and CE-PET-MR studies were interpreted by consensus by a radiologist and a nuclear medicine physician. Correlations with prior imaging and follow-up studies were used as the reference standard. Binomial confidence intervals and a χ2 test were used for categorical data, and paired t-test was used for the SUVmax data; a non-informative prior Bayesian approach was used to estimate and compare the specificities. Results: Osseous metastases affected 25 out 109 patients. Metastases were demonstrated by CE-PET-CT in 22 out of 25 patients (88%±7%), and by CE-PET-MR in 25 out of 25 patients (100%). CE-PET-CT revealed 90 osseous metastases and CE-PET-MR revealed 141 osseous metastases (P<0.001). The estimated sensitivity of CE-PET-CT and CE-PET-MR were 0.8519 and 0.9630, respectively. The estimated specificity for CE-FDG-PET-MR was 0.9884. The specificity of CE-PET-CT cannot be determined from patient-level data, because CE-PET-CT yielded a false-positive lesion in a patient who also had other, true metastases. Conclusions: CE-PET-MR detected a higher number of osseous metastases than did same-day CE-PET-CT, and was positive for 12% of the patients deemed osseous metastasis-negative on the basis of CE-PET-CT.

Description

Keywords

PET-CT, PET-MR, skeletal metastases, osseous metastases, breast cancer

Terms of Use

This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material (LAA), as set forth at Terms of Service

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Referenced By

Related Stories