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 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.

Head-to-Head Comparison of Tc-99m-sestamibi SPECT/CT and C-11-L-Methionin PET/CT in Parathyroid Scanning Before Operation for Primary Hyperparathyroidism.

PURPOSE: The preferred nuclear medicine method for identification of hyperfunctioning parathyroid glands in hyperparathyroidism (HPT) develops continuously in relation to the technological progress. Diagnostic methods based on PET/CT have during recent years evolved with new tracer possibilities competing with traditional scintigraphic methods. This investigation is a head-to-head comparison of Tc-99m-sestamibi SPECT/CT gamma camera scintigraphy (sestamibi SPECT/CT) and C-11-L-methionin PET/CT imaging (methionine PET/CT) for preoperative identification of hyperfunctioning parathyroid glands. PROCEDURES: The study is a prospective cohort study including 27 patients diagnosed with primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT). Two nuclear medicine physicians assessed all examinations independently and blinded. All scanning assessments were matched to the final surgical diagnosis as confirmed by histopathology. Biochemical monitoring of the therapeutical effects was performed preoperatively by PTH-measurements and followed postoperatively for up to 12 months. Comparisons were made for differences in sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV). RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients (18 females, 9 males; mean age (range): 58.9 years (34.1-79)) were enrolled into the study. The 27 patients had a total of 33 identified sites of lesions of which 28 (85%) turned out to be histopathological verified hyperfunctioning parathyroid glands. The sensitivity and PPV for sestamibi SPECT/CT were 0.71 and 0.95; that of methionine PET/CT was 0.82 and 1, respectively. Both sensitivity and PPV were slightly lower for sestamibi SPECT/CT than for methionine PET PET/CT (-0.11, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): -0.29 to 0.08; -0.05, 95% CI: -0.14 to 0.04, respectively), but not to a statistically significant extent (p=0.38 and p=0.31). The sensitivity and PPV for diagnostic CT were 0.64 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.81) and 1 (95% CI: 0.81 to 1). CONCLUSIONS: Methionine PET/CT performed comparable to sestamibi SPECT/CT with respect to identification and localization of hyperfunctioning parathyroid glands prior to surgery.

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.

Response Monitoring in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Prospective Study Comparing 18F-FDG PET/CT with Conventional CT.

This study aimed to compare contrast-enhanced CT (CE-CT) and 18F-FDG PET/CT for response monitoring in metastatic breast cancer using the standardized response evaluation criteria RECIST 1.1 and PERCIST. The objective was to examine whether progressive disease was detected systematically earlier by one of the modalities. Methods: Women with biopsy-verified metastatic breast cancer were enrolled prospectively and monitored using combined CE-CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT every 9-12 wk to evaluate response to first-line treatment. CE-CT scans and RECIST 1.1 were used for clinical decision-making without accessing the 18F-FDG PET/CT scans. At study completion, 18F-FDG PET/CT scans were unmasked and assessed according to PERCIST. Visual assessment was used if response criteria could not be applied. The modality-specific time to progression was defined as the time from the baseline scan until the first scan demonstrating progression. Paired comparative analyses for CE-CT versus 18F-FDG PET/CT were applied, and the primary endpoint was earlier detection of progression by one modality. Secondary endpoints were time to detection of progression, response categorization, visualization of changes in response over time, and measurable disease according to RECIST and PERCIST. Results: In total, 87 women were evaluable, with a median of 6 (1-11) follow-up scans. Progression was detected first by 18F-FDG PET/CT in 43 (49.4%) of 87 patients and first by CE-CT in 1 (1.15%) of 87 patients (P < 0.0001). Excluding patients without progression (n = 32), progression was seen first on 18F-FDG PET/CT in 78.2% (43/55) of patients. The median time from detection of progression by 18F-FDG PET/CT to that of CE-CT was 6 mo (95% CI, 4.3-6.4 mo). At baseline, 76 (87.4%) of 87 patients had measurable disease according to PERCIST and 51 (58.6%) of 87 patients had measurable disease according to RECIST 1.1. Moreover, 18F-FDG PET/CT provided improved visualization of changes in response over time, as seen in the graphical abstract. Conclusion: Disease progression was detected earlier by 18F-FDG PET/CT than by CE-CT in most patients, with a potentially clinically relevant median 6-mo delay for CE-CT. More patients had measurable disease according to PERCIST than according to RECIST 1.1. The magnitude of the final benefit for patients is a perspective for future research.