What is the diagnostic performance of 18-FDG-PET/MR compared to PET/CT for the N- and M- staging of breast cancer?

Details

Serval ID
serval:BIB_09EDC2CBB673
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
What is the diagnostic performance of 18-FDG-PET/MR compared to PET/CT for the N- and M- staging of breast cancer?
Journal
European radiology
Author(s)
Botsikas D., Bagetakos I., Picarra M., Da Cunha Afonso Barisits A.C., Boudabbous S., Montet X., Lam G.T., Mainta I., Kalovidouri A., Becker M.
ISSN
1432-1084 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
0938-7994
Publication state
Published
Issued date
04/2019
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
29
Number
4
Pages
1787-1798
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Comparative Study ; Journal Article
Publication Status: ppublish
Abstract
To compare the diagnostic performance of 18-FDG-PET/MR and PET/CT for the N- and M- staging of breast cancer.
Two independent readers blinded to clinical/follow-up data reviewed PET/MR and PET/CT examinations performed for initial or recurrent breast cancer staging in 80 consecutive patients (mean age = 48 ± 12.9 years). The diagnostic confidence for lesions in the contralateral breast, axillary/internal mammary nodes, bones and other distant sites were recorded. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated. The standard of reference included pathology and/or follow-up > 12 months.
Nine of 80 patients had bone metastases; 13/80 had other distant metastases, 44/80 had axillary, 9/80 had internal mammary and 3/80 had contralateral breast tumours. Inter-reader agreement for lesions was excellent (weighted kappa = 0.833 for PET/CT and 0.823 for PET/MR) with similar reader confidence for the two tests (ICC = 0.875). In the patient-per-patient analysis, sensitivity and specificity of PET/MRI and PET/CT were similar (p > 0.05). In the lesion-per-lesion analysis, the sensitivity of PET/MR and PET/CT for bone metastases, other metastases, axillary and internal mammary nodes, contralateral tumours and all lesions together was 0.924 and 0.6923 (p = 0.0034), 0.923 and 0.923 (p = 1), 0.854 and 0.812 (p = 0.157), 0.9 and 0.9 (p = 1), 1 and 0.25 (p = 0.083), and 0.89 and 0.77 (p = 0.0013) respectively. The corresponding specificity was 0.953 and 1 (p = 0.0081), 1 and 1 (p = 1), 0.893 and 0.92 (p = 0.257), 1 and 1 (p = 1), 0.987 and 0.99 (p = 1) and 0.96 and 0.98 (p = 0.0075) respectively.
Reader confidence, inter-reader agreement and diagnostic performance per patient were similar with PET/MR and PET/CT. However, for all lesions together, PET/MR had a superior sensitivity and lower specificity in the lesion-per-lesion analysis.
• N and M breast cancer staging performance of PET/MR and PET/CT is similar per patient. • In a lesion-per-lesion analysis PET/MR is more sensitive than PET/CT especially for bone metastasis. • Readers' diagnostic confidence is similar for both tests.
Keywords
Adult, Aged, Axilla, Bone Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging, Bone Neoplasms/secondary, Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging, Breast Neoplasms/pathology, Female, Fluorodeoxyglucose F18, Humans, Lymphatic Metastasis, Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods, Middle Aged, Multimodal Imaging/methods, Neoplasm Recurrence, Local, Neoplasm Staging, Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography/methods, Positron-Emission Tomography/methods, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Radiopharmaceuticals, Sensitivity and Specificity, Breast neoplasms, Magnetic resonance imaging, Neoplasm staging, Positron emission tomography computed tomography
Pubmed
Web of science
Create date
04/11/2018 16:14
Last modification date
20/08/2019 12:32
Usage data