The Pattern of Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Prospective Head-to-Head Comparison of [18F]FDG-PET/CT and CE-CT.

The study aimed to compare the metastatic pattern of breast cancer and the intermodality proportion of agreement between [18F]FDG-PET/CT and CE-CT. Women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) were enrolled prospectively and underwent a combined [18F]FDG-PET/CT and CE-CT scan to diagnose MBC. Experienced nuclear medicine and radiology physicians evaluated the scans blinded to the opposite scan results. Descriptive statistics were applied, and the intermodality proportion of agreement was used to compare [18F]FDG-PET/CT and CE-CT. In total, 76 women with verified MBC were enrolled in the study. The reported number of site-specific metastases for [18F]FDG-PET/CT vs. CE-CT was 53 (69.7%) vs. 44 (57.9%) for bone lesions, 31 (40.8%) vs. 43 (56.6%) for lung lesions, and 16 (21.1%) vs. 23 (30.3%) for liver lesions, respectively. The proportion of agreement between imaging modalities was 76.3% (95% CI 65.2-85.3) for bone lesions; 82.9% (95% CI 72.5-90.6) for liver lesions; 57.9% (95% CI 46.0-69.1) for lung lesions; and 59.2% (95% CI 47.3-70.4) for lymph nodes. In conclusion, bone and distant lymph node metastases were reported more often by [18F]FDG-PET/CT than CE-CT, while liver and lung metastases were reported more often by CE-CT than [18F]FDG-PET/CT. Agreement between scans was highest for bone and liver lesions and lowest for lymph node metastases.

2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT in Cancer of Unknown Primary Tumor-A Retrospective Register-Based Cohort Study.

We investigated the impact of 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT on detection rate (DR) of the primary tumor and survival in patients with suspected cancer of unknown primary tumor (CUP), comparing it to the conventional diagnostic imaging method, CT. Patients who received a tentative CUP diagnosis at Odense University Hospital from 2014-2017 were included. Patients receiving a 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT were assigned to the 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT group and patients receiving a CT only to the CT group. DR was calculated as the proportion of true positive findings of 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT and CT scans, separately, using biopsy of the primary tumor, autopsy, or clinical decision as reference standard. Survival analyses included Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for age, sex, treatment, and propensity score. We included 193 patients. Of these, 159 were in the 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT group and 34 were in the CT group. DR was 36.5% in the 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT group and 17.6% in the CT group, respectively (p = 0.012). Median survival was 7.4 (95% CI 0.4-98.7) months in the 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT group and 3.8 (95% CI 0.2-98.1) in the CT group. Survival analysis showed a crude hazard ratio of 0.63 (p = 0.024) and an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.68 (p = 0.087) for the 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT group compared with CT. This study found a significantly higher DR of the primary tumor in suspected CUP patients using 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT compared with patients receiving only CT, with possible immense clinical importance. No significant difference in survival was found, although a possible tendency towards longer survival in the 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT group was observed.

2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT is a better predictor of survival than conventional CT: a prospective study of response monitoring in metastatic breast cancer.

This study aimed to compare CE-CT and 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT for response monitoring metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The primary objective was to predict progression-free and disease-specific survival for responders vs. non-responders on CE-CT and 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT. The secondary objective was to assess agreement between response categorization for the two modalities. Treatment response in women with MBC was monitored prospectively by simultaneous CE-CT and 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT, allowing participants to serve as their own controls. The standardized response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST 1.1) and PET response criteria in solid tumors (PERCIST) were used for response categorization. For prediction of progression-free and disease-specific survival, treatment response was dichotomized into responders (partial and complete response) and non-responders (stable and progressive disease) at the first follow-up scan. Progression-free survival was defined as the time from baseline until disease progression or death from any cause. Disease-specific survival was defined as the time from baseline until breast cancer-specific death. Agreement between response categorization for both modalities was analyzed for all response categories and responders vs. non-responders. At the first follow-up, tumor response was reported more often by 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT than CE-CT, with only fair agreement on response categorization between the two modalities (weighted Kappa 0.28). Two-year progression-free survival for responders vs. non-responders by CE-CT was 54.2% vs. 46.0%, compared with 59.1% vs. 14.3% by 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT. Correspondingly, 2-year disease-specific survival were 83.3% vs. 77.8% for CE-CT and 84.6% vs. 61.9% for 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT. Tumor response on 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT was significantly associated with progression-free (HR: 3.49, P < 0.001) and disease-specific survival (HR 2.35, P = 0.008), while no association was found for tumor response on CE-CT. In conclusion, 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT appears a better predictor of progression-free and disease-specific survival than CE-CT when used to monitor metastatic breast cancer. In addition, we found low concordance between response categorization between the two modalities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical. TRIALS: gov. NCT03358589. Registered 30/11/2017-Retrospectively registered, http://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Comparison of Image Quality and Quantification Parameters between Q.Clear and OSEM Reconstruction Methods on FDG-PET/CT Images in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer.

We compared the image quality and quantification parameters through bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm (Q.Clear) and ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) algorithm for 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT scans performed for response monitoring in patients with metastatic breast cancer in prospective setting. We included 37 metastatic breast cancer patients diagnosed and monitored with 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT at Odense University Hospital (Denmark). A total of 100 scans were analyzed blinded toward Q.Clear and OSEM reconstruction algorithms regarding image quality parameters (noise, sharpness, contrast, diagnostic confidence, artefacts, and blotchy appearance) using a five-point scale. The hottest lesion was selected in scans with measurable disease, considering the same volume of interest in both reconstruction methods. SULpeak (g/mL) and SUVmax (g/mL) were compared for the same hottest lesion. There was no significant difference regarding noise, diagnostic confidence, and artefacts within reconstruction methods; Q.Clear had significantly better sharpness (p < 0.001) and contrast (p = 0.001) than the OSEM reconstruction, while the OSEM reconstruction had significantly less blotchy appearance compared with Q.Clear reconstruction (p < 0.001). Quantitative analysis on 75/100 scans indicated that Q.Clear reconstruction had significantly higher SULpeak (5.33 ± 2.8 vs. 4.85 ± 2.5, p < 0.001) and SUVmax (8.27 ± 4.8 vs. 6.90 ± 3.8, p < 0.001) compared with OSEM reconstruction. In conclusion, Q.Clear reconstruction revealed better sharpness, better contrast, higher SUVmax, and higher SULpeak, while OSEM reconstruction had less blotchy appearance.