SavedAdd your journal

Journals / European Journal of Breast Health / 2019 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 4

What is the Diagnostic Performance of 18F-FDG-PET/ MRI in the Detection of Bone Metastasis in Patients with Breast Cancer?

Filiz ÇELEBİ
Pages
213–216
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In termsof the total number of detected bone metastasis, there was a statistically signifiant diffrence between 18F-FDG-PET/MRI (mean 3.57; median 0;range, 0-2) and PET only component (mean 2.87; median 0; range, 0-1) (p=0.026), but no statistically signifiant diffrence was detected between18F-FDG-PET/MRI and whole-body CE MRI (mean 3.43; median 0; range 0-2) (p=0.083).Conclusion: Whole-body hybrid 18F-FDG-PET/MRI is superior to PET component only, but no statistically signifiant diffrence between hybrid 18F-FDG-PET/MRI and whole-body CE MRI is found for the detection of bone metastasis in patients with breast cancer

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of 18F-florodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonanceimaging (MRI) in the detection of bone metastasis in patients with breast cancer.Materials and methods: From August 2018 to January 2019, a total of 23 patients with pathologically confimed invasive breast cancer underwent whole-body hybrid 18F-FDG -PET/MRI for initial staging and follow-up of their malignancies.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Th total 18F-FDG-PET/MRI protocol was compared with PET only and the contrast enhanced fused (CE) componentfor the detection of bone metastasis.Results: Eight (26%) of 23 patients had bone metastasis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In termsof the total number of detected bone metastasis, there was a statistically signifiant diffrence between 18F-FDG-PET/MRI (mean 3.57; median 0;range, 0-2) and PET only component (mean 2.87; median 0; range, 0-1) (p=0.026), but no statistically signifiant diffrence was detected between18F-FDG-PET/MRI and whole-body CE MRI (mean 3.43; median 0; range 0-2) (p=0.083).Conclusion: Whole-body hybrid 18F-FDG-PET/MRI is superior to PET component only, but no statistically signifiant diffrence between hybrid 18F-FDG-PET/MRI and whole-body CE MRI is found for the detection of bone metastasis in patients with breast cancer
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of 18F-florodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonanceimaging (MRI) in the detection of bone metastasis in patients with breast cancer.Materials and methods: From August 2018 to January 2019, a total of 23 patients with pathologically confimed invasive breast cancer underwent whole-body hybrid 18F-FDG -PET/MRI for initial staging and follow-up of their malignancies. Th number of the bone metastasis wasrecorded for each patient. Th total 18F-FDG-PET/MRI protocol was compared with PET only and the contrast enhanced fused (CE) componentfor the detection of bone metastasis.Results: Eight (26%) of 23 patients had bone metastasis. Bone metastases were dominantly localized in the spine (63%) and pelvis (25%). In termsof the total number of detected bone metastasis, there was a statistically signifiant diffrence between 18F-FDG-PET/MRI (mean 3.57; median 0;range, 0-2) and PET only component (mean 2.87; median 0; range, 0-1) (p=0.026), but no statistically signifiant diffrence was detected between18F-FDG-PET/MRI and whole-body CE MRI (mean 3.43; median 0; range 0-2) (p=0.083).Conclusion: Whole-body hybrid 18F-FDG-PET/MRI is superior to PET component only, but no statistically signifiant diffrence between hybrid 18F-FDG-PET/MRI and whole-body CE MRI is found for the detection of bone metastasis in patients with breast cancer

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇELEBİ, F. (2022). What is the Diagnostic Performance of 18F-FDG-PET/ MRI in the Detection of Bone Metastasis in Patients with Breast Cancer?. European Journal of Breast Health, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 4, 213–216. https://ajindex.com/articles/510733

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Weigelt B, Peterse JL, van’t Veer LJ. Breast cancer metastasis: markers and models. Nat Rev Cancer 2005
  2. (PMID: 16056258) [CrossRef] 2. Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Blair SL, Burstein HJ, Cyr A, Elias AD, Farrar WB, Forero A, Giordano SH, Goldstein LJ, Hayes DF, Hudis CA, Isakof SJ, Ljung BM, Marcom PK, Mayer IA, McCormick B, Miller RS, Pegram M, Pierce LJ, Reed EC, Salerno KE, Schwartzberg LS, Smith ML, Soliman H, Somlo G, Ward JH, Wolf AC, Zellars R, Shead DA, Kumar R. Breast cancer version 3.2014. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2014
  3. (PMID: 24717572) [CrossRef] 3. Lauenstein TC, Freudenberg LS, Goehde SC, Ruehm SG, Goyen M, Bosk S, Debatin JF, Barkhausen J. Whole-body MRI using rolling table platform for the detection of bone metastases. Eur Radiol 2002
  4. (PMID: 12136329) [CrossRef] 4. Gutzeit A, Doert A, Froehlich JM, Eckhardt BP, Meili A, Scherr P, Schmid DT, Graf N, von Weymarn CA, Willemse EM, Binkert CA. Comparison of diffsion-weighted whole body MRI and skeletal scintigraphy for the detection bone metastases in patients with prostate or breast carcinoma. Skeletal Radiology 2010
  5. [CrossRef] 5. Taneja S, Jena A, Goel R, Sarin R, Kaul S. Simultaneous whole-body 18 3F-FDG PET-MRI in primary staging of breadt cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Radiol 2014
  6. (PMID: 25282709) [CrossRef] 6. Tabouret-Viaud C, Botsikas D, Delattre BM, Mainta I, Amzalag G, Rager O, Vinh-Hung V, Miralbell R, Ratib O. PET/MR in Breast Cancer. Semin Nucl Med 2015
  7. (PMID: 26050658) [CrossRef] 7. Catalano OA, Nicolai E, Rosen BR, Luongo A, Catalano M, Iannace C, Guimaraes A, Vangel MG, Mahmood U, Soricelli A, Salvatore M. Comparison of CE-FDG PET/CT with CE-FDG-PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer 2015
  8. (PMID: 25871331) [CrossRef] 8. Botsikas D, Kalovidouri A, Becker M, Copercini M, Djema DA, Bodmer A, Monnier S, Becker CD, Montet X, Delattre BM, Ratib O, Garibotto V, Tabouret-Viaud C. Clinical utility of 18F-FDG-PET/MR for preoperative breast cancer staging. Eur Radiol 2016
  9. (PMID: 26477029) [CrossRef] 9. Melsaether AN, Raad RA, Pujara AC, Ponzo FD, Pysarenko KM, Jhaveri K, Babb JS, Sigmund EE, Kim SG, Moy LA. Comparison of whole-body (18)F FDG PET/MR imaging and whole-body (18)F FDG PET/CT in terms of lesion detection and radiation dose in patients with breast cancer. Radiology 2016
  10. (PMID: 27023002) [CrossRef] 10. Cho I