Links to Exploration step
Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">The utility of <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT for suspected recurrent breast cancer: impact and prognostic stratification</title><author><name sortKey="Cochet, Alexandre" sort="Cochet, Alexandre" uniqKey="Cochet A" first="Alexandre" last="Cochet">Alexandre Cochet</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I1">Centre for Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I5">Department of Nuclear Medicine, Centre Georges-François Leclerc, 1 rue Professeur Marion, Dijon Cedex 21079, France</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="David, Steven" sort="David, Steven" uniqKey="David S" first="Steven" last="David">Steven David</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I2">Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I4">The Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Moodie, Kate" sort="Moodie, Kate" uniqKey="Moodie K" first="Kate" last="Moodie">Kate Moodie</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I1">Centre for Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Drummond, Elizabeth" sort="Drummond, Elizabeth" uniqKey="Drummond E" first="Elizabeth" last="Drummond">Elizabeth Drummond</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I1">Centre for Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I4">The Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Dutu, Gaelle" sort="Dutu, Gaelle" uniqKey="Dutu G" first="Gaelle" last="Dutu">Gaelle Dutu</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I3">Centre for Biostatistics and Clinical Trials, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Macmanus, Michael" sort="Macmanus, Michael" uniqKey="Macmanus M" first="Michael" last="Macmanus">Michael Macmanus</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I2">Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I4">The Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Chua, Boon" sort="Chua, Boon" uniqKey="Chua B" first="Boon" last="Chua">Boon Chua</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I2">Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I4">The Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Hicks, Rodney J" sort="Hicks, Rodney J" uniqKey="Hicks R" first="Rodney J" last="Hicks">Rodney J. Hicks</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I1">Centre for Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I4">The Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PMC</idno><idno type="pmid">25608599</idno><idno type="pmc">4331819</idno><idno type="url">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4331819</idno><idno type="RBID">PMC:4331819</idno><idno type="doi">10.1186/1470-7330-14-13</idno><date when="2014">2014</date><idno type="wicri:Area/Pmc/Corpus">001629</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Pmc" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PMC">001629</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en" level="a" type="main">The utility of <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT for suspected recurrent breast cancer: impact and prognostic stratification</title><author><name sortKey="Cochet, Alexandre" sort="Cochet, Alexandre" uniqKey="Cochet A" first="Alexandre" last="Cochet">Alexandre Cochet</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I1">Centre for Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I5">Department of Nuclear Medicine, Centre Georges-François Leclerc, 1 rue Professeur Marion, Dijon Cedex 21079, France</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="David, Steven" sort="David, Steven" uniqKey="David S" first="Steven" last="David">Steven David</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I2">Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I4">The Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Moodie, Kate" sort="Moodie, Kate" uniqKey="Moodie K" first="Kate" last="Moodie">Kate Moodie</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I1">Centre for Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Drummond, Elizabeth" sort="Drummond, Elizabeth" uniqKey="Drummond E" first="Elizabeth" last="Drummond">Elizabeth Drummond</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I1">Centre for Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I4">The Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Dutu, Gaelle" sort="Dutu, Gaelle" uniqKey="Dutu G" first="Gaelle" last="Dutu">Gaelle Dutu</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I3">Centre for Biostatistics and Clinical Trials, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Macmanus, Michael" sort="Macmanus, Michael" uniqKey="Macmanus M" first="Michael" last="Macmanus">Michael Macmanus</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I2">Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I4">The Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Chua, Boon" sort="Chua, Boon" uniqKey="Chua B" first="Boon" last="Chua">Boon Chua</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I2">Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I4">The Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Hicks, Rodney J" sort="Hicks, Rodney J" uniqKey="Hicks R" first="Rodney J" last="Hicks">Rodney J. Hicks</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I1">Centre for Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation><affiliation><nlm:aff id="I4">The Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia</nlm:aff></affiliation></author></analytic><series><title level="j">Cancer Imaging</title><idno type="ISSN">1740-5025</idno><idno type="eISSN">1470-7330</idno><imprint><date when="2014">2014</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en"><sec><title>Background</title><p>The incremental value of <sup>18</sup>FDG PET/CT in patients with breast cancer (BC) compared to conventional imaging (CI) in clinical practice is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the management impact and prognostic value of <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT in this setting.</p></sec><sec><title>Methods</title><p>Sixty-three patients who were referred to our institution for suspicion of BC relapse were retrospectively enrolled. All patients had been evaluated with CI and underwent PET/CT. At a median follow-up of 61 months, serial clinical, imaging and pathologic results were obtained to validate diagnostic findings. Overall Survival (OS) was estimated using Kaplan Meier methods and analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards regression models.</p></sec><sec><title>Results</title><p>Forty-two patients had a confirmed relapse with 37 (88%) positive on CI and 40 (95%) positive on PET/CT. When compared with CI, PET/CT had a higher negative predictive value (86% versus 54%) and positive predictive value (95% versus 70%). The management impact of PET/CT was high (change of treatment modality or intent) in 30 patients (48%) and medium (change in radiation treatment volume or dose fractionation) in 6 patients (9%). Thirty-nine patients (62%) died during follow-up. The PET/CT result was a highly significant predictor of OS (Hazard Ratio [95% Confidence Interval] =4.7 [2.0-10.9] for PET positive versus PET negative for a systemic recurrence; p = 0.0003). In a Cox multivariate analysis including other prognosis factors, PET/CT findings predicted survival (p = 0.005). In contrast, restaging by CI was not significant predictor of survival.</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusion</title><p>Our study support the value of <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT in providing incremental information that influence patient management and refine prognostic stratification in the setting of suspected recurrent breast cancer.</p></sec></div></front><back><div1 type="bibliography"><listBibl><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Van Dongen, Ja" uniqKey="Van Dongen J">JA van Dongen</name></author><author><name sortKey="Voogd, Ac" uniqKey="Voogd A">AC Voogd</name></author><author><name sortKey="Fentiman, Is" uniqKey="Fentiman I">IS Fentiman</name></author><author><name sortKey="Legrand, C" uniqKey="Legrand C">C Legrand</name></author><author><name sortKey="Sylvester, Rj" uniqKey="Sylvester R">RJ Sylvester</name></author><author><name sortKey="Tong, D" uniqKey="Tong D">D Tong</name></author><author><name sortKey="Van Der Schueren, E" uniqKey="Van Der Schueren E">E van der Schueren</name></author><author><name sortKey="Helle, Pa" uniqKey="Helle P">PA Helle</name></author><author><name sortKey="Van Zijl, K" uniqKey="Van Zijl K">K van Zijl</name></author><author><name sortKey="Bartelink, H" uniqKey="Bartelink H">H Bartelink</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Avril, N" uniqKey="Avril N">N Avril</name></author><author><name sortKey="Rose, Ca" uniqKey="Rose C">CA Rose</name></author><author><name sortKey="Schelling, M" uniqKey="Schelling M">M Schelling</name></author><author><name sortKey="Dose, J" uniqKey="Dose J">J Dose</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kuhn, W" uniqKey="Kuhn W">W Kuhn</name></author><author><name sortKey="Bense, S" uniqKey="Bense S">S Bense</name></author><author><name sortKey="Weber, W" uniqKey="Weber W">W Weber</name></author><author><name sortKey="Ziegler, S" uniqKey="Ziegler S">S Ziegler</name></author><author><name sortKey="Graeff, H" uniqKey="Graeff H">H Graeff</name></author><author><name sortKey="Schwaiger, M" uniqKey="Schwaiger M">M Schwaiger</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Bos, R" uniqKey="Bos R">R Bos</name></author><author><name sortKey="Van Der Hoeven, Jj" uniqKey="Van Der Hoeven J">JJ van Der Hoeven</name></author><author><name sortKey="Van Der Wall, E" uniqKey="Van Der Wall E">E van Der Wall</name></author><author><name sortKey="Van Der Groep, P" uniqKey="Van Der Groep P">P van Der Groep</name></author><author><name sortKey="Van Diest, Pj" uniqKey="Van Diest P">PJ van Diest</name></author><author><name sortKey="Comans, Ef" uniqKey="Comans E">EF Comans</name></author><author><name sortKey="Joshi, U" uniqKey="Joshi U">U Joshi</name></author><author><name sortKey="Semenza, Gl" uniqKey="Semenza G">GL Semenza</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hoekstra, Os" uniqKey="Hoekstra O">OS Hoekstra</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lammertsma, Aa" uniqKey="Lammertsma A">AA Lammertsma</name></author><author><name sortKey="Molthoff, Cf" uniqKey="Molthoff C">CF Molthoff</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Wahl, Rl" uniqKey="Wahl R">RL Wahl</name></author><author><name sortKey="Cody, Rl" uniqKey="Cody R">RL Cody</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hutchins, Gd" uniqKey="Hutchins G">GD Hutchins</name></author><author><name sortKey="Mudgett, Ee" uniqKey="Mudgett E">EE Mudgett</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Aukema, Ts" uniqKey="Aukema T">TS Aukema</name></author><author><name sortKey="Rutgers, Ej" uniqKey="Rutgers E">EJ Rutgers</name></author><author><name sortKey="Vogel, Wv" uniqKey="Vogel W">WV Vogel</name></author><author><name sortKey="Teertstra, Hj" uniqKey="Teertstra H">HJ Teertstra</name></author><author><name sortKey="Oldenburg, Hs" uniqKey="Oldenburg H">HS Oldenburg</name></author><author><name sortKey="Vrancken Peeters, Mt" uniqKey="Vrancken Peeters M">MT Vrancken Peeters</name></author><author><name sortKey="Wesseling, J" uniqKey="Wesseling J">J Wesseling</name></author><author><name sortKey="Russell, Ns" uniqKey="Russell N">NS Russell</name></author><author><name sortKey="Valdes Olmos, Ra" uniqKey="Valdes Olmos R">RA Valdés Olmos</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Dirisamer, A" uniqKey="Dirisamer A">A Dirisamer</name></author><author><name sortKey="Halpern, Bs" uniqKey="Halpern B">BS Halpern</name></author><author><name sortKey="Flory, D" uniqKey="Flory D">D Flory</name></author><author><name sortKey="Wolf, F" uniqKey="Wolf F">F Wolf</name></author><author><name sortKey="Beheshti, M" uniqKey="Beheshti M">M Beheshti</name></author><author><name sortKey="Mayerhoefer, Me" uniqKey="Mayerhoefer M">ME Mayerhoefer</name></author><author><name sortKey="Langsteger, W" uniqKey="Langsteger W">W Langsteger</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Eubank, Wb" uniqKey="Eubank W">WB Eubank</name></author><author><name sortKey="Mankoff, D" uniqKey="Mankoff D">D Mankoff</name></author><author><name sortKey="Bhattacharya, M" uniqKey="Bhattacharya M">M Bhattacharya</name></author><author><name sortKey="Gralow, J" uniqKey="Gralow J">J Gralow</name></author><author><name sortKey="Linden, H" uniqKey="Linden H">H Linden</name></author><author><name sortKey="Ellis, G" uniqKey="Ellis G">G Ellis</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lindsley, S" uniqKey="Lindsley S">S Lindsley</name></author><author><name sortKey="Austin Seymour, M" uniqKey="Austin Seymour M">M Austin-Seymour</name></author><author><name sortKey="Livingston, R" uniqKey="Livingston R">R Livingston</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Evangelista, L" uniqKey="Evangelista L">L Evangelista</name></author><author><name sortKey="Baretta, Z" uniqKey="Baretta Z">Z Baretta</name></author><author><name sortKey="Vinante, L" uniqKey="Vinante L">L Vinante</name></author><author><name sortKey="Cervino, Ar" uniqKey="Cervino A">AR Cervino</name></author><author><name sortKey="Gregianin, M" uniqKey="Gregianin M">M Gregianin</name></author><author><name sortKey="Ghiotto, C" uniqKey="Ghiotto C">C Ghiotto</name></author><author><name sortKey="Saladini, G" uniqKey="Saladini G">G Saladini</name></author><author><name sortKey="Sotti, G" uniqKey="Sotti G">G Sotti</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Grahek, D" uniqKey="Grahek D">D Grahek</name></author><author><name sortKey="Montravers, F" uniqKey="Montravers F">F Montravers</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kerrou, K" uniqKey="Kerrou K">K Kerrou</name></author><author><name sortKey="Aide, N" uniqKey="Aide N">N Aide</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lotz, Jp" uniqKey="Lotz J">JP Lotz</name></author><author><name sortKey="Talbot, Jn" uniqKey="Talbot J">JN Talbot</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Pan, L" uniqKey="Pan L">L Pan</name></author><author><name sortKey="Han, Y" uniqKey="Han Y">Y Han</name></author><author><name sortKey="Sun, X" uniqKey="Sun X">X Sun</name></author><author><name sortKey="Liu, J" uniqKey="Liu J">J Liu</name></author><author><name sortKey="Gang, H" uniqKey="Gang H">H Gang</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Pennant, M" uniqKey="Pennant M">M Pennant</name></author><author><name sortKey="Takwoingi, Y" uniqKey="Takwoingi Y">Y Takwoingi</name></author><author><name sortKey="Pennant, L" uniqKey="Pennant L">L Pennant</name></author><author><name sortKey="Davenport, C" uniqKey="Davenport C">C Davenport</name></author><author><name sortKey="Fry Smith, A" uniqKey="Fry Smith A">A Fry-Smith</name></author><author><name sortKey="Eisinga, A" uniqKey="Eisinga A">A Eisinga</name></author><author><name sortKey="Andronis, L" uniqKey="Andronis L">L Andronis</name></author><author><name sortKey="Arvanitis, T" uniqKey="Arvanitis T">T Arvanitis</name></author><author><name sortKey="Deeks, J" uniqKey="Deeks J">J Deeks</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hyde, C" uniqKey="Hyde C">C Hyde</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Radan, L" uniqKey="Radan L">L Radan</name></author><author><name sortKey="Ben Haim, S" uniqKey="Ben Haim S">S Ben-Haim</name></author><author><name sortKey="Bar Shalom, R" uniqKey="Bar Shalom R">R Bar-Shalom</name></author><author><name sortKey="Guralnik, L" uniqKey="Guralnik L">L Guralnik</name></author><author><name sortKey="Israel, O" uniqKey="Israel O">O Israel</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Veit Haibach, P" uniqKey="Veit Haibach P">P Veit-Haibach</name></author><author><name sortKey="Antoch, G" uniqKey="Antoch G">G Antoch</name></author><author><name sortKey="Beyer, T" uniqKey="Beyer T">T Beyer</name></author><author><name sortKey="Stergar, H" uniqKey="Stergar H">H Stergar</name></author><author><name sortKey="Schleucher, R" uniqKey="Schleucher R">R Schleucher</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hauth, Ea" uniqKey="Hauth E">EA Hauth</name></author><author><name sortKey="Bockisch, A" uniqKey="Bockisch A">A Bockisch</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Vranjesevic, D" uniqKey="Vranjesevic D">D Vranjesevic</name></author><author><name sortKey="Filmont, Je" uniqKey="Filmont J">JE Filmont</name></author><author><name sortKey="Meta, J" uniqKey="Meta J">J Meta</name></author><author><name sortKey="Silverman, Dh" uniqKey="Silverman D">DH Silverman</name></author><author><name sortKey="Phelps, Me" uniqKey="Phelps M">ME Phelps</name></author><author><name sortKey="Rao, J" uniqKey="Rao J">J Rao</name></author><author><name sortKey="Valk, Pe" uniqKey="Valk P">PE Valk</name></author><author><name sortKey="Czernin, J" uniqKey="Czernin J">J Czernin</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Evangelista, L" uniqKey="Evangelista L">L Evangelista</name></author><author><name sortKey="Cervino, Ar" uniqKey="Cervino A">AR Cervino</name></author><author><name sortKey="Ghiotto, C" uniqKey="Ghiotto C">C Ghiotto</name></author><author><name sortKey="Al Nahhas, A" uniqKey="Al Nahhas A">A Al-Nahhas</name></author><author><name sortKey="Rubello, D" uniqKey="Rubello D">D Rubello</name></author><author><name sortKey="Muzzio, Pc" uniqKey="Muzzio P">PC Muzzio</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Santiago, Jf" uniqKey="Santiago J">JF Santiago</name></author><author><name sortKey="Gonen, M" uniqKey="Gonen M">M Gonen</name></author><author><name sortKey="Yeung, H" uniqKey="Yeung H">H Yeung</name></author><author><name sortKey="Macapinlac, H" uniqKey="Macapinlac H">H Macapinlac</name></author><author><name sortKey="Larson, S" uniqKey="Larson S">S Larson</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kalff, V" uniqKey="Kalff V">V Kalff</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hicks, Rj" uniqKey="Hicks R">RJ Hicks</name></author><author><name sortKey="Macmanus, Mp" uniqKey="Macmanus M">MP MacManus</name></author><author><name sortKey="Binns, Ds" uniqKey="Binns D">DS Binns</name></author><author><name sortKey="Mckenzie, Af" uniqKey="Mckenzie A">AF McKenzie</name></author><author><name sortKey="Ware, Re" uniqKey="Ware R">RE Ware</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hogg, A" uniqKey="Hogg A">A Hogg</name></author><author><name sortKey="Ball, Dl" uniqKey="Ball D">DL Ball</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Filippi, V" uniqKey="Filippi V">V Filippi</name></author><author><name sortKey="Malamitsi, J" uniqKey="Malamitsi J">J Malamitsi</name></author><author><name sortKey="Vlachou, F" uniqKey="Vlachou F">F Vlachou</name></author><author><name sortKey="Laspas, F" uniqKey="Laspas F">F Laspas</name></author><author><name sortKey="Georgiou, E" uniqKey="Georgiou E">E Georgiou</name></author><author><name sortKey="Prassopoulos, V" uniqKey="Prassopoulos V">V Prassopoulos</name></author><author><name sortKey="Andreou, J" uniqKey="Andreou J">J Andreou</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Grassetto, G" uniqKey="Grassetto G">G Grassetto</name></author><author><name sortKey="Fornasiero, A" uniqKey="Fornasiero A">A Fornasiero</name></author><author><name sortKey="Otello, D" uniqKey="Otello D">D Otello</name></author><author><name sortKey="Bonciarelli, G" uniqKey="Bonciarelli G">G Bonciarelli</name></author><author><name sortKey="Rossi, E" uniqKey="Rossi E">E Rossi</name></author><author><name sortKey="Nashimben, O" uniqKey="Nashimben O">O Nashimben</name></author><author><name sortKey="Minicozzi, Am" uniqKey="Minicozzi A">AM Minicozzi</name></author><author><name sortKey="Crepaldi, G" uniqKey="Crepaldi G">G Crepaldi</name></author><author><name sortKey="Pasini, F" uniqKey="Pasini F">F Pasini</name></author><author><name sortKey="Facci, E" uniqKey="Facci E">E Facci</name></author><author><name sortKey="Mandoliti, G" uniqKey="Mandoliti G">G Mandoliti</name></author><author><name sortKey="Marzola, Mc" uniqKey="Marzola M">MC Marzola</name></author><author><name sortKey="Al Nahhas, A" uniqKey="Al Nahhas A">A Al-Nahhas</name></author><author><name sortKey="Rubello, D" uniqKey="Rubello D">D Rubello</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Murakami, R" uniqKey="Murakami R">R Murakami</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kumita, S" uniqKey="Kumita S">S Kumita</name></author><author><name sortKey="Yoshida, T" uniqKey="Yoshida T">T Yoshida</name></author><author><name sortKey="Ishihara, K" uniqKey="Ishihara K">K Ishihara</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kiriyama, T" uniqKey="Kiriyama T">T Kiriyama</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hakozaki, K" uniqKey="Hakozaki K">K Hakozaki</name></author><author><name sortKey="Yanagihara, K" uniqKey="Yanagihara K">K Yanagihara</name></author><author><name sortKey="Iida, S" uniqKey="Iida S">S Iida</name></author><author><name sortKey="Tsuchiya, S" uniqKey="Tsuchiya S">S Tsuchiya</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Hicks, Rj" uniqKey="Hicks R">RJ Hicks</name></author></analytic></biblStruct></listBibl></div1></back></TEI><pmc article-type="research-article" xml:lang="en"><pmc-dir>properties open_access</pmc-dir>
<front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">Cancer Imaging</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="iso-abbrev">Cancer Imaging</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Cancer Imaging</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">1740-5025</issn><issn pub-type="epub">1470-7330</issn><publisher><publisher-name>BioMed Central</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="pmid">25608599</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="pmc">4331819</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">1470-7330-14-13</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/1470-7330-14-13</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>The utility of <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT for suspected recurrent breast cancer: impact and prognostic stratification</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" id="A1"><name><surname>Cochet</surname><given-names>Alexandre</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="I1">1</xref><xref ref-type="aff" rid="I5">5</xref><email>ACochet@dijon.fnclcc.fr</email></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" id="A2"><name><surname>David</surname><given-names>Steven</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="I2">2</xref><xref ref-type="aff" rid="I4">4</xref><email>steve.david@petermac.org</email></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" id="A3"><name><surname>Moodie</surname><given-names>Kate</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="I1">1</xref><email>kate.moodie@petermac.org</email></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" id="A4"><name><surname>Drummond</surname><given-names>Elizabeth</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="I1">1</xref><xref ref-type="aff" rid="I4">4</xref><email>elizabeth.drummond@petermac.org</email></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" id="A5"><name><surname>Dutu</surname><given-names>Gaelle</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="I3">3</xref><email>gaelle.dutu@petermac.org</email></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" id="A6"><name><surname>MacManus</surname><given-names>Michael</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="I2">2</xref><xref ref-type="aff" rid="I4">4</xref><email>michael.macmanus@petermac.org</email></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" id="A7"><name><surname>Chua</surname><given-names>Boon</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="I2">2</xref><xref ref-type="aff" rid="I4">4</xref><email>boon.chua@petermac.org</email></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" id="A8"><name><surname>Hicks</surname><given-names>Rodney J</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="I1">1</xref><xref ref-type="aff" rid="I4">4</xref><email>rod.hicks@petermac.org</email></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="I1"><label>1</label>Centre for Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia</aff><aff id="I2"><label>2</label>Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia</aff><aff id="I3"><label>3</label>Centre for Biostatistics and Clinical Trials, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia</aff><aff id="I4"><label>4</label>The Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, the University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia</aff><aff id="I5"><label>5</label>Department of Nuclear Medicine, Centre Georges-François Leclerc, 1 rue Professeur Marion, Dijon Cedex 21079, France</aff><pub-date pub-type="collection"><year>2014</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>22</day><month>4</month><year>2014</year></pub-date><volume>14</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>13</fpage><lpage>13</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>20</day><month>3</month><year>2014</year></date><date date-type="accepted"><day>20</day><month>3</month><year>2014</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>Copyright © 2014 Cochet et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><copyright-holder>Cochet et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.</copyright-holder><license license-type="open-access" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"><license-p>This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0</ext-link>), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/">http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/</ext-link>) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.</license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="http://www.cancerimagingjournal.com/content/14/1/13"></self-uri><abstract><sec><title>Background</title><p>The incremental value of <sup>18</sup>FDG PET/CT in patients with breast cancer (BC) compared to conventional imaging (CI) in clinical practice is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the management impact and prognostic value of <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT in this setting.</p></sec><sec><title>Methods</title><p>Sixty-three patients who were referred to our institution for suspicion of BC relapse were retrospectively enrolled. All patients had been evaluated with CI and underwent PET/CT. At a median follow-up of 61 months, serial clinical, imaging and pathologic results were obtained to validate diagnostic findings. Overall Survival (OS) was estimated using Kaplan Meier methods and analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards regression models.</p></sec><sec><title>Results</title><p>Forty-two patients had a confirmed relapse with 37 (88%) positive on CI and 40 (95%) positive on PET/CT. When compared with CI, PET/CT had a higher negative predictive value (86% versus 54%) and positive predictive value (95% versus 70%). The management impact of PET/CT was high (change of treatment modality or intent) in 30 patients (48%) and medium (change in radiation treatment volume or dose fractionation) in 6 patients (9%). Thirty-nine patients (62%) died during follow-up. The PET/CT result was a highly significant predictor of OS (Hazard Ratio [95% Confidence Interval] =4.7 [2.0-10.9] for PET positive versus PET negative for a systemic recurrence; p = 0.0003). In a Cox multivariate analysis including other prognosis factors, PET/CT findings predicted survival (p = 0.005). In contrast, restaging by CI was not significant predictor of survival.</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusion</title><p>Our study support the value of <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT in providing incremental information that influence patient management and refine prognostic stratification in the setting of suspected recurrent breast cancer.</p></sec></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Breast cancer</kwd><kwd><sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT</kwd><kwd>Restaging</kwd><kwd>Prognosis</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec><title>Background</title><p>Breast cancer (BC) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women, and is the leading cause of death by cancer for women in the western world. Depending on the initial extent of the disease, approximately 30% of patients diagnosed with BC are at risk of developing loco-regional recurrence or secondary tumor dissemination to distant organs
[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">1</xref>]. Moreover, the survival of patients who develop an isolated loco-regional recurrence differs from patients who have distant relapse. As a consequence, determination of both the locations and extent of the recurrent disease is essential to guide therapeutic decisions and estimate prognosis.</p><p>Traditionally, routine evaluation of suspected recurrent BC involves physical examination and a multi-modality Conventional Imaging (CI) approach which may include mammography, CT, MRI, and bone scintigraphy. However, this CI approach is often time-intensive and potential false-negative findings may delay appropriate therapy. Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) with <sup>18</sup> F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (<sup>18</sup> F-FDG) is also often used in this indication, given that <sup>18</sup> F-FDG has affinity for both primary and secondary breast tumors, depending on size and aggressiveness
[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">2</xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">4</xref>]. Several authors have suggested that <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET and PET/CT are more sensitive than CI for detection of recurrent BC
[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">5</xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">15</xref>] and can have a significant impact on the therapeutic management
[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">5</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">7</xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">9</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">12</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">16</xref>]. However, information concerning the utility of <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT for long-term prognostic stratification, when compared with CI, is limited.</p><p>Thus, the objectives of our study were to:
[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">1</xref>] assess the incremental diagnostic performance and the impact on therapeutic management of <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT in a group of patients with a history of BC who had already been restaged by CI for identification of suspected disease relapse;
[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">2</xref>] compare the long-term prognostic stratification of CI alone and <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT.</p></sec><sec sec-type="methods"><title>Methods</title><sec><title>Patients</title><p>A retrospective analysis was performed on consecutive patients with a history of BC and suspicion of recurrence who were referred for <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT at our institution from January 2002 to September 2008. BC was not a funded indication of <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT during this period in Australia; therefore, clinicians usually referred patients with high suspicion of recurrence for PET/CT.</p><p>The inclusion criteria of the study were as follows: (a) a history of confirmed histologic diagnosis of primary BC treated as per local protocol; (b) CI performed no longer than 4 months prior to PET/CT and where the CI included at least a CT scan of the area of interest; (c) availability of follow-up data for a minimum of 6 months following PET/CT; (d) unequivocal determination of clinical status at the time of the last clinical follow-up.</p><p>Sixty-three patients (62 women and one man; mean age = 57 years; range = 29-86 years) were included. The median time interval from initial diagnosis to <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT was 39 months (range 5-431 months). The median time interval between CT and PET/CT was 25 days (first-third quartile: 1-52 days). Indications for PET/CT were: equivocal or suspicious CI findings (n = 28); clinical suspicion of recurrence (n = 21); restaging after completion of therapy (n = 5); routine surveillance (n = 5); and increasing levels of tumor markers (n = 4). All patients provided permission to review medical records at the time of PET/CT imaging according to our institution’s investigational review board guidelines for informed consent (protocol number 09/78).</p></sec><sec><title>PET/CT acquisition and processing</title><p>Whole-body PET was acquired sequentially using a dedicated PET/CT system (Discovery LS PET/ 4-slice helical CT or Discovery STE/ 8-slice helical CT, General Electric Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI) combining a multidetector CT scanner with a dedicated, full-ring PET scanner with bismuth germanate crystals. Patients were instructed to fast except for glucose-free oral hydration for at least 6 hours before injection of 300-400 MBq of <sup>18</sup> F-FDG. PET was performed 60 min following <sup>18</sup> F-FDG injection. Blood glucose levels were measured before the injection of the tracer to ensure levels below 10 mmol/l. Transmission data used for attenuation correction were obtained from a low-dose non diagnostic CT acquisition (140 kVp and 40-120 mA), without contrast enhancement. Attenuation corrected PET images were reconstructed with an iterative reconstruction (ordered-subset expectation maximization algorithm). Orthogonal CT, PET, and fused PET/CT images were displayed simultaneously on a GE Xeleris Workstation. The PET data were also displayed in a rotating maximum-intensity projection.</p><p>An experienced nuclear medicine physician generated a clinical report after reviewing PET images, low-dose CT images, fused PET/CT images, previous imaging results and clinical information. Standard uptake values were not routinely measured. Once issued, the PET/CT report was not reinterpreted in the light of subsequent clinical information.</p></sec><sec><title>Image interpretation and classification</title><p>A total of 188 clinical, imaging and pathological procedures were performed (3 ± 1.4 per patients), including chest CT (n = 59), abdominopelvic CT (n = 44), whole-body bone scan (n = 30), clinical examination (n = 17), pathology (n = 9), abdominal ultrasound (US) (n = 7), MRI (n = 7), mammogram or breast US (n = 6), chest radiography (n = 5), other (n = 5).</p><p>Written clinical reports of conventional images and PET/CT were reviewed and classified as (a) negative if imaging tests were negative for disease; (b) equivocal, when abnormal findings were present on any imaging test but were not interpreted as suspicious for malignancy; (c) positive, if any result was clearly described as suspicious or consistent with malignancy. Negative and equivocal findings were combined as negative for the analysis.</p><p>In cases where recurrence was reported on CI or PET/CT, the location of relapse was also determined, and classified as loco-regional (ipsilateral breast, ipsilateral axillary, internal mammary or supraclavicular node station) or systemic (contralateral node station or distant metastasis). The final diagnosis of disease recurrence and location of disease was confirmed by histologic examination in 13 patients (21%). For the remaining patients, evidence of progression within 6 months of clinical and/or imaging follow-up was considered to indicate a site of disease relapse, whereas no evidence of progression after at least 6 months of follow-up was considered to confirm absence of active disease at that site.</p></sec><sec><title>Assessment of impact</title><p>Referring physicians were asked to record a pre-PET/CT management plan before PET/CT results on our routine clinical request form. The actual post-PET/CT management plan and treatment intent were determined from the medical record or by contacting the referring clinician.</p><p>The impact of PET/CT on management was considered “high” when the treatment intent or modality was changed (e.g. from palliative to curative treatment or from surgery to radiotherapy)
[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">17</xref>]. The impact was considered as “medium” when the method of treatment delivery was changed (e.g. radiation treatment volume and/or dose fractionation)
[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">17</xref>]. When the PET/CT results did not indicate a need for change, the impact was considered to be “low”. PET/CT was considered to have had “no impact” when the management chosen conflicted with post-PET/CT disease extent on the basis of a synthesis of all available information.</p></sec><sec><title>Follow-up</title><p>After PET/CT, progress updates were obtained from the medical record, family physician, or treating oncologist. When relevant, details of the date and cause of death were obtained. The disease status at the time of death was recorded.</p></sec><sec><title>Statistical analysis</title><p>Estimates of OS at 2 and 5 years were computed using the Kaplan Meier method, a log-rank test was used to analyze the effect of CI and PET/CT results on OS. Two Cox regression analyses were performed to assess the impact of PET/CT and CI on OS controlling for clinical variables and using a backward elimination process. Triple negative status of the primary tumor was not included in the multivariate model because this information was available for only 38 patients. For percentages such as PPV, NPV, sensitivity and specificity, a Blyth-Still-Casella 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Diagnosis performance results were compared using McNemar tests, Fisher exact tests and a likelihood ratio, which summarizes how many times more likely patients with the disease are to have that particular result than patients without the disease. According to the fact that patients were selected on the basis of CI, many patients with unequivocal systemic relapse on CI would likely not have been referred for PET/CT. Given the likely pre-test selection bias, positive and negative predictive values were considered as more relevant comparators of diagnostic performance when compared with sensitivity and specificity.</p></sec></sec><sec sec-type="results"><title>Results</title><p>Patient characteristics at the time of initial diagnosis are summarized in Table
<xref ref-type="table" rid="T1">1</xref>.</p><table-wrap position="float" id="T1"><label>Table 1</label><caption><p>Patient characteristics at the time of initial diagnosis</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups" border="1"><colgroup><col align="left"></col><col align="center"></col></colgroup><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left" valign="bottom"><bold>Characteristics</bold><hr></hr></th><th align="center" valign="bottom"><bold>Number of patients (%)</bold><hr></hr></th></tr><tr><th align="left"> </th><th align="center"><bold>(sample size = 63)</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">Localisation<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> Right<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">30 (48)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> Left<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">29 (46)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> Bilateral<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">4 (6)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">Histology<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> Ductal<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">42 (67)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> Lobular<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">11 (17)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> Other<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">7 (12)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> Unknown<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">3 (5)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">Histological grade<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> 1 and 2<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">28 (44)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> 3<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">25 (40)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> Unknown<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">10 (16)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">Lymphovascular invasion<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> +<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">22 (35)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> -<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">23 (36)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> Unknown<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">18 (29)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">Estrogen receptor status<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> +<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">34 (54)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> -<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">20 (32)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> Unknown<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">9 (14)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">Progesterone receptor status<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> +<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">25 (40)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> -<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">28 (44)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> Unknown<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">10 (16)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">HER2 status<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> +<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">9 (14)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> -<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">29 (46)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> Unknown<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">25 (40)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">T stage<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> 1<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">29 (46)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> 2<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">17 (27)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> 3<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">10 (16)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> 4<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">3 (5)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> X<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">4 (6)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">N status<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> +<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">29 (46)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> -<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">31 (49)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left"> X</td><td align="center">3 (5)</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><p>HER-2 = Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-2.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><sec><title>Diagnostic performance</title><p>Relapse involving at least one site was confirmed in 42 of the 63 patients (67%). CI was positive for disease in 37 of these patients, yielding a patient sensitivity of 88%, whereas PET/CT was positive for disease in 40, corresponding to a patient sensitivity of 95%.</p><p>Table
<xref ref-type="table" rid="T2">2</xref> shows comparison of extent of suspected relapse as assessed before and after PET/CT. Downstaging by PET/CT was confirmed to be correct in 12/14 patients (one patient had a suspicious bony lesion on bone scan that was non <sup>18</sup> F-FDG-avid, but confirmed to be malignant; one patient showed suspicious mediastinal lymph nodes on CT that were non <sup>18</sup> F-FDG-avid but confirmed to be metastasis of breast cancer by pathology), while upstaging with PET/CT was confirmed in 5/5 patients.</p><table-wrap position="float" id="T2"><label>Table 2</label><caption><p>Comparison of extent of suspected relapse as assessed before and after PET/CT</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups" border="1"><colgroup><col align="left"></col><col align="center"></col><col align="center"></col><col align="center"></col><col align="center"></col><col align="center"></col><col align="center"></col><col align="center"></col></colgroup><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left" valign="bottom"><bold>Pre-PET/CT extent of relapse</bold><hr></hr></th><th colspan="4" align="center" valign="bottom"><bold>Post-PET/CT extent of relapse</bold><hr></hr></th><th align="center" valign="bottom"><bold>% less disease by PET/CT</bold><hr></hr></th><th align="center" valign="bottom"><bold>% same status</bold><hr></hr></th><th align="center" valign="bottom"><bold>% more disease by PET/CT</bold><hr></hr></th></tr><tr><th align="left"> </th><th align="center"><bold>Negative</bold></th><th align="center"><bold>LR only</bold></th><th align="center"><bold>Systemic</bold></th><th align="center"><bold>Total</bold></th><th align="center"> </th><th align="center"> </th><th align="center"> </th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">Negative<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">8<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">3<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">12<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">-<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">66<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">33<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">LR only<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">6<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">8<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">12.5<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">75<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">12.5<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">Systemic<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">12<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">30<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">43<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">30<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">70<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">-<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="center">21</td><td align="center">8</td><td align="center">34</td><td align="center">63</td><td align="center">22</td><td align="center">70</td><td align="center">8</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><p>LR = Loco-Regional; PET/CT = Positron Emission Tomography/Computerized Tomography.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><p>On final diagnosis, 20 patients (32%) had a loco-regional recurrence and 36 (57%) had a systemic recurrence (14 patients had both loco-regional and systemic recurrence). CI was truly positive for loco-regional recurrence in 8/20 patients (40%) and systemic recurrence in 30/36 patients (83%). PET/CT was truly positive for loco-regional recurrence in 20/20 patients (100%) and systemic disease in 32/36 patients (89%). Among the 20 patients experiencing loco-regional recurrence, only 3 had local relapse only, for whom both PET/CT and CI were positive. PET/CT detected regional relapse non-detected by CI in 12 patients (3 in axillary nodes only, 9 in extra-axillary nodes). PET/CT had significantly higher positive predictive values when compared with CI for determination of loco-regional, systemic and global recurrence, and higher negative predictive value for loco-regional and global recurrence (Table
<xref ref-type="table" rid="T3">3</xref>). <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT found incidental malignancies in 2 patients (one patient had a primary esophageal cancer and one patient had a gastrointestinal stromal tumor).</p><table-wrap position="float" id="T3"><label>Table 3</label><caption><p>Diagnostic accuracy of conventional imaging (CI) and PET/CT in detecting relapse of disease in all patients, according to the histological type, and for locoregional and systemic recurrence</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups" border="1"><colgroup><col align="left"></col><col align="center"></col><col align="center"></col><col align="center"></col><col align="center"></col><col align="center"></col><col align="center"></col><col align="center"></col><col align="center"></col></colgroup><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></th><th align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></th><th colspan="3" align="center" valign="bottom"><bold>Negative predictive value</bold><hr></hr></th><th colspan="3" align="center" valign="bottom"><bold>Positive predictive value</bold><hr></hr></th><th align="center" valign="bottom"><bold>Likelihood</bold><hr></hr></th></tr><tr><th align="left"> </th><th align="center"><bold>n</bold></th><th align="center"> </th><th align="center"><bold>95% CI</bold></th><th align="center"><bold>p</bold></th><th align="center"> </th><th align="center"><bold>95% CI</bold></th><th align="center"><bold>p</bold></th><th align="center"><bold>Ratio*</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>All patients:</italic><hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">63<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">Conventional Imaging<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">7/13 (<bold>54%</bold>)<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">29–82<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">35/50 (<bold>70%</bold>)<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">59–84<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.3<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">PET/CT<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">19/22 (<bold>86%</bold>)<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">70–98<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"><bold>0.05</bold><hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">39/41 (<bold>95%</bold>)<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">84–99<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"><bold>0.003</bold><hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">9.8<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>Locoregional recurrence:</italic><hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">63<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">Conventional Imaging<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">41/53 (<bold>77%</bold>)<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">65–88<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">8/10 (<bold>80%</bold>)<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">44–96<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">8.6<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">PET/CT<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">42/42 (<bold>100%</bold>)<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">93–100<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"><bold><0.001</bold><hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">20/21 (<bold>95%</bold>)<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">78–100<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"><bold>0.24</bold><hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">43<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>Systemic recurrence:</italic><hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">63<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">Conventional imaging<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">14/19 (<bold>74%</bold>)<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">50–89<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">31/44 (<bold>70%</bold>)<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">56–82<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.8<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left">PET/CT</td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center">26/29 (<bold>90%</bold>)</td><td align="center">74–97</td><td align="center"><bold>0.24</bold></td><td align="center">33/34 (<bold>97%</bold>)</td><td align="center">85–100</td><td align="center"><bold>0.002</bold></td><td align="center">24.8</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><p>CI = Confidence Interval; PET/CT = Positron Emission Tomography/Computerized Tomography. Significant p values in bold.</p><p>*likelihood ratio = sensitivity/ (1-specificity).</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap></sec><sec><title>Impact on management</title><p>The PET/CT results had a high impact on management in 30 patients (48%) of whom the treatment intent was modified in 24 patients (including from invasive diagnosis to observation for 11 patients, according to negative PE/CT results despite suspicious CI findings). For the 6 remaining patients, the treatment intent was not modified after PET/CT (palliative for 5 patients, curative for 1 patient), but the modalities of therapy were changed.</p><p>PET/CT had a medium impact on management in 6/63 patients (9%). Management changes in these patients primarily included changes in radiation treatment volume as a result of more extensive disease detected by PET/CT. All these patients had a palliative treatment intent, which was not modified by PET/CT.</p><p>PET/CT had a low impact (i.e. did not change the planned management) in 27/63 patients (43%) for whom the relapse extent was concordant with that found on CI (19 patients) or the documentation of a different distribution of disease did not alter the planned treatment (2 patients), or both PET/CT and CI findings were negative (6 patients). In no case was the PET/CT result apparently ignored.</p></sec><sec><title>Prediction of survival by CI and PET/CT</title><p>Survival data were analyzed with a close-out date of September, 4th 2010. The median follow-up time was 5.1 years (range 0.8-8.6 years). All 63 patients entered into the study had a known status at the close-out date. All patients with negative PET/CT findings were followed for a minimum of 2 years after the scan (except one patient who died 2 months after the scan, because of complications of an esophageal primary tumor discovered on PET/CT).</p><p>Thirty-eight patients (60%) were deceased with a median survival of 3.4 years (95% CI 2.5 to 5.0 years) (Figure
<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F1">1</xref>). The estimated 2-year OS was 66.4% (95% CI 53.2% to 76.6%) and the estimated 5-year OS was 37.3% (95% CI 24.3% to 50.3%).</p><fig id="F1" position="float"><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p>Estimated overall survival (+/- 95% confidence interval) for all 63 patients.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="1470-7330-14-13-1"></graphic></fig><p>On univariate analysis, PET/CT status (negative, positive LR or positive systemic) was strongly associated with survival (log-rank test: p = 0.0003 for the entire model; p = 0.0001 for comparison of negative results and positive for systemic disease; p > 0.05 for other single comparisons) (Figure
<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F2">2</xref>). Patients with systemic disease according to PET/CT had a 4.7-fold in the risk of death when compared with patients with negative PET/CT findings, while patients with only loco-regional recurrence had a 2-fold increase in the risk of death (Table
<xref ref-type="table" rid="T4">4</xref>). In contrast, CI status (negative, positive LR or positive systemic) did not significantly predict OS (log-rank test: p = 0.07 for the entire model; p > 0.05 for all single comparisons) (Figure
<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F2">2</xref>). Moreover, patients with positive CI findings but negative PET/CT findings had similar estimated survival to patients in whom both tests were negative, whereas patients with negative CI findings but positive PET/CT results had comparable estimated survival to patients in whom both procedures were positive for recurrence (Figure
<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F3">3</xref>). </p><fig id="F2" position="float"><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p><bold>Overall survival by staging technique. (A)</bold> Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall survival (OS) stratified by pre-PET/CT (Conventional imaging) status. <bold>(B)</bold> Kaplan-Meier estimate of OS stratified by post-PET/CT status. CI = Conventional Imaging; LR = loco-regional recurrence only; Syst = systemic recurrence.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="1470-7330-14-13-2"></graphic></fig><table-wrap position="float" id="T4"><label>Table 4</label><caption><p>Univariate predictors of overall survival</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups" border="1"><colgroup><col align="right"></col><col align="center"></col><col align="center"></col><col align="center"></col><col align="center"></col></colgroup><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="right" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></th><th align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></th><th colspan="2" align="center" valign="bottom"><bold>Cox regression</bold><hr></hr></th><th align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></th></tr><tr><th align="right" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></th><th align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></th><th colspan="2" align="center" valign="bottom"><bold>Relative hazard rate</bold><hr></hr></th><th align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></th></tr><tr><th align="right"> </th><th align="center"><bold>No. pts</bold></th><th align="center"><bold>HR</bold></th><th align="center"><bold>95% CI</bold></th><th align="center"><bold>Logrank test</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">All patients<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">63<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">Time between diagnosis and PET/CT<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td rowspan="4" align="center" valign="bottom">0.94<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">0 to 3 years<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">33<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.00<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(Reference)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">4 to 9 years<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">16<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.13<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(0.54 – 2.37)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">10+ years<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">14<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.07<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(0.47 – 2.46)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">Histological type<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td rowspan="4" align="center" valign="bottom"><bold>0.018</bold><hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">Invasive ductal carcinoma<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">42<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.00<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(Reference)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">Invasive lobular carcinoma<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">11<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">2.83<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(1.34 – 6.02)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">Mixed, Mucinous and other<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">7<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.66<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(0.66 – 4.40)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">T<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td rowspan="4" align="center" valign="bottom"><bold>0.0004</bold><hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">T1<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">29<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.00<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(Reference)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">T2<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">17<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">2.94<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(1.33 – 6.50)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">T3/T4<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">13<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">4.70<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(1.99 – 11.05)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">N<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td rowspan="3" align="center" valign="bottom">0.27<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">N<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">31<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.00<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(Reference)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">N+<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">29<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.43<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(0.75 – 2.75)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">Stage at diagnosis<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td rowspan="4" align="center" valign="bottom"><bold>0.009</bold><hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">Stage I<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">19<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.00<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(Reference)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">Stage II<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">19<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">3.05<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(1.17 – 7.90)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">Stage III/IV<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">21<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">3.68<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(1.51 – 9.00)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">Histological grade<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td rowspan="3" align="center" valign="bottom">0.92<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">1 and 2<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">28<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.00<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(Reference)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">3<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">25<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.04<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(0.52 – 2.05)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">ER status<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td rowspan="3" align="center" valign="bottom">0.067<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">Positive<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">34<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.00<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(Reference)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">Negative<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">20<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.87<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(0.95 – 3.68)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">PR status<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td rowspan="3" align="center" valign="bottom">0.29<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">Positive<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">25<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.00<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(Reference)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">Negative<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">28<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.45<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(0.73 – 2.88)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">HER-2 status*<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td rowspan="3" align="center" valign="bottom">0.85<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">Positive<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">9<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.00<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(Reference)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">Negative<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">29<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.09<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(0.44 – 2.73)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">Triple negative status*<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td rowspan="3" align="center" valign="bottom"><bold>0.0003</bold><hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">At least one Positive<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">27<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.00<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(Reference)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">Triple Negative<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">9<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">5.28<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(1.99 – 14.00)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">CI findings<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td rowspan="4" align="center" valign="bottom">0.07<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">Negative<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">12<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.00<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(Reference)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">Positive - loco regional<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">8<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.54<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(0.38 – 6.16)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">Positive - systemic<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">43<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">2.89<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(1.02 – 8.18)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">PET/CT findings<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td rowspan="3" align="center" valign="bottom"><bold>0.0003</bold><hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">Negative<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">21<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.00<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(Reference)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="bottom">Positive - loco regional<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">9<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">2.02<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">(0.59 – 6.98)<hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="right">Positive - systemic</td><td align="center">33</td><td align="center">4.71</td><td align="center">(2.03 – 10.93)</td><td align="center"> </td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><p>*The information is available for only 38 patients.</p><p>CI = Confidence Interval; ER = Estrogen Receptor; HER-2 = Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-2; HR = Hazard Ratio; PET/CT = Positron Emission Tomography/Computerized Tomography; PR = Progesterone Receptor. Significant p values in bold.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><fig id="F3" position="float"><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p>Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall survival (OS) stratified by combination of Conventional imaging (CI) and PET/CT results.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="1470-7330-14-13-3"></graphic></fig><p>Initial stage of the disease at the time of diagnosis, histological type of cancer and triple negative status (hormone receptor and HER-2 negativity) were also predictors of survival on the univariate analysis (Table
<xref ref-type="table" rid="T4">4</xref>). Time between initial diagnosis and the restaging PET/CT, initial histological grade, estrogen receptor status, progesterone receptor status and overexpression of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-2 (HER-2) were not significant predictors of survival. On multivariate analysis, positive PET/CT findings (for loco-regional and/or systemic recurrence) remained an independent predictor of OS when adjusting for age, histological subtype and initial stage (model 1, Table
<xref ref-type="table" rid="T5">5</xref>). In contrast, positive CI findings did not independently predict OS (model 2, Table
<xref ref-type="table" rid="T5">5</xref>).</p><table-wrap position="float" id="T5"><label>Table 5</label><caption><p>Multivariate predictors of overall survival</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups" border="1"><colgroup><col align="left"></col><col align="center"></col><col align="center"></col><col align="center"></col><col align="center"></col></colgroup><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left"> </th><th align="center"><bold>No of observed deaths</bold></th><th align="center"><bold>HR</bold></th><th align="center"><bold>95% CI</bold></th><th align="center"><bold>P</bold></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"><bold>Model 1</bold><hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">36/58<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> Age (per 10 years)<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.4<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.1–1.7<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"><bold>0.02</bold><hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> Invasive ductal carcinoma vs. other type<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">2.6<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.3–5.3<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"><bold>0.007</bold><hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> Initial stage II, III, IV vs. I<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">4.1<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.7–10.3<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"><bold>0.002</bold><hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> PET/CT positive vs negative<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">3.5<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.5–8.2<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"><bold>0.005</bold><hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"><bold>Model 2</bold><hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">36/58<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> Age (per 10 years)<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.4<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.1–1.8<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"><bold>0.01</bold><hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> Invasive ductal carcinoma vs. other<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">2.9<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">1.4–5.8<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"><bold>0.003</bold><hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom"> Initial stage II, III, IV vs. I<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"> <hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">5.4<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom">2.1–13.4<hr></hr></td><td align="center" valign="bottom"><bold><0.001</bold><hr></hr></td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Conventional Imaging positive vs. negative</td><td align="center"> </td><td align="center">2.0</td><td align="center">0.7–5.7</td><td align="center"><bold>0.22</bold></td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><p>CI = Confidence Interval; HR = Hazard Ratio; PET/CT = Positron Emission Tomography/Computerized Tomography. Significant p values in bold.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap></sec></sec><sec sec-type="discussion"><title>Discussion</title><p>For patients with possible recurrent breast cancer (BC), early detection and adequate localization of recurrent disease are essential for guiding optimal therapy and prognostication. Patients with isolated loco-regional recurrence are able to benefit from curative salvage therapy, whereas palliative treatment is generally indicated for patients with distant relapse.</p><p>Several studies have shown the relevance of <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT in detecting distant metastasis in patients with clinical suspicion of recurrence
[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">6</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">8</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">12</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">13</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">18</xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">20</xref>], and in patients with documented loco-regional recurrence
[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">5</xref>]. Our study confirmed that <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT is an accurate technique for the appropriate detection of relapse, when compared with CI alone. Of particular economic and clinical importance was the observation that 12 patients (19%) in this series who were suspected to have relapsed by conventional evaluation subsequently received no active treatment after a negative <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT evaluation and demonstrated an excellent prognosis. In contrast, of the 8 patients with negative CI findings, 1 patient was found to have locoregional relapse and 3 patients were found to have systemic recurrence on <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT. In the current study, <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT had an impact on therapeutic management in 57% of patients; in particular, the treatment intent was changed in 38% of patients. This result is consistent with other studies which showed the important impact of <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT on therapeutic management in patients with suspicion of recurrent BC
[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">5</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">8</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">12</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">18</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">19</xref>]. Most of these previous studies reported that <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT was highly accurate for detecting recurrent disease in patients with negative or inconclusive CI findings
[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">5</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">18</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">19</xref>]. In contrast, in our study, CI findings were consistent with relapse in the majority of patients (51/63) but <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT downstaged 12 of them, providing a better negative predictive value when compared to CI alone (Table
<xref ref-type="table" rid="T3">3</xref>). These findings suggested that <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT was not only effective for early detection of relapse in patients with negative CI findings, but also yielded a better characterization of CI findings in patients with a high suspicion of relapse.</p><p>As BC was not a funded indication of <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT in Australia during the study period, referring clinicians were likely to use PET/CT in patients for whom there was clinical uncertainty with respect to the appropriate management. Although this patient selection could have introduced biases in the evaluation of the impact of PET/CT findings on patient management, it also showed the value of <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT in patients whose disease status could not be adequately determined using CI alone.</p><p>The more accurate prognostic information derived from PET/CT results when compared with CI findings underpinned the value of PET/CT in the management of patients with recurrent BC. Both <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/CT and CT are not optimal modalities for detection of local recurrence, when compared with mammography, ultrasound or MRI. However, detection of additional distant metastases in patients with documented loco-regional recurrence is essential in order to optimize management and stratify prognosis. Of note was the favourable survival of patients with isolated loco-regional recurrence according to PET/CT, when compared with patients with systemic relapse.</p><p>In our study, CT performed with PET was not of diagnostic quality. However, all patients included in this study had diagnostic CT before undergoing FDG PET/CT.</p><p>While Dirisamer et al. showed in a retrospective study that the association of FDG PET and contrast-enhanced (ce) CT could improve restaging of breast cancer when compared with ceCT or FDG PET alone
[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">6</xref>], there is no evidence in the literature of the superiority of FDG PET/ceCT for restaging of breast cancer when compared with FDG PET associated to non-diagnostic, low dose CT. In our study, the outcome data validate our approach in that FDG PET/CT results were more often correct than conventional imaging (including diagnostic CT) when discordant, and stratified prognosis whereas conventional imaging did not (Figure
<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F2">2</xref>). If we hadn’t ignored the conventional imaging findings (including diagnostic CT) when discordant with FDG PET/CT, the accuracy wouldn’t have been enhanced and the prognostic value of FDG PET/CT incorporating a low dose, non-contrast CT wouldn’t have been superior to that of conventional imaging. These results have implications for the reporting of FDG PET combined with ceCT, which is performed by some facilities as a routine procedure and suggest that significant clinical weight should be placed on the PET findings even when discordant with the ceCT appearances.</p><p>One of the limitations of our study was that the CI procedures were not standardized and were selected on the basis of clinical findings. However, this represented routine clinical practice and did not detract from the results. Although comparison of a masked reading of PET/CT with a masked reading of CI techniques might be appropriate if PET/CT were to be suggested as a replacement for CI, the main purpose of this study was to evaluate the incremental diagnostic and prognostic value of PET/CT in routine practice. The results of this retrospective study would, however, justify a randomized trial in which patients with clinical risk or suspicion of relapse would be stratified to have either CI or FDG PET/CT as the initial restaging procedure
[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">21</xref>]. Finally, we did not compare PET/CT and CI findings with histopathological findings in most patients. For 50 patients (79%), the final disease status was determined clinically and/or with follow-up imaging. Nevertheless, since most of the patients were followed up for a long period of time, the survival analysis would be the best validation of diagnostic accuracy.</p></sec><sec sec-type="conclusions"><title>Conclusion</title><p>Our findings support the value of <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT in providing incremental information that influence patient management and refine prognostic stratification in the setting of suspected recurrent breast cancer. The prognostic stratification provided by this technique emphasizes the crucial role of <sup>18</sup> F-FDG PET/CT in optimizing treatment choices in this setting. Further multicentric studies are needed to confirm this role in particular in patients with high suspicion of relapse.</p></sec><sec><title>Competing interests</title><p>The authors declare that they have no competing interests.</p></sec><sec><title>Authors’ contributions</title><p>AC, SD, KM and RJH were involved in the concept and design of the study. AC SD, and ED were involved in data collection, history review and follow-up. KM was the imaging lead on the study and with RJH verified classification of scan results. GT was the study statistician and contributed to analysis of the primary data. SD, MM and BC were the clinical leads for assessing the impact criteria and verifying classifications of PET/CT impact. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.</p></sec></body><back><sec><title>Funding</title><p>A.C. was supported by a fellowship from the Fondation de France, and by grants from the French Ligue contre le cancer and from the Conseil Régional de Bourgogne.</p></sec><ref-list><ref id="B1"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><name><surname>van Dongen</surname><given-names>JA</given-names></name><name><surname>Voogd</surname><given-names>AC</given-names></name><name><surname>Fentiman</surname><given-names>IS</given-names></name><name><surname>Legrand</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Sylvester</surname><given-names>RJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Tong</surname><given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>van der Schueren</surname><given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Helle</surname><given-names>PA</given-names></name><name><surname>van Zijl</surname><given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Bartelink</surname><given-names>H</given-names></name><article-title>Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing breast-conserving therapy with mastectomy: European organization for research and treatment of cancer 10801 trial</article-title><source>J Natl Cancer Inst</source><year>2000</year><volume>92</volume><issue>14</issue><fpage>1143</fpage><lpage>1150</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/jnci/92.14.1143</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">10904087</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B2"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><name><surname>Avril</surname><given-names>N</given-names></name><name><surname>Rose</surname><given-names>CA</given-names></name><name><surname>Schelling</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Dose</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Kuhn</surname><given-names>W</given-names></name><name><surname>Bense</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Weber</surname><given-names>W</given-names></name><name><surname>Ziegler</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Graeff</surname><given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Schwaiger</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><article-title>Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations</article-title><source>J Clin Oncol</source><year>2000</year><volume>18</volume><issue>20</issue><fpage>3495</fpage><lpage>3502</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">11032590</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><name><surname>Bos</surname><given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>van Der Hoeven</surname><given-names>JJ</given-names></name><name><surname>van Der Wall</surname><given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>van Der Groep</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>van Diest</surname><given-names>PJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Comans</surname><given-names>EF</given-names></name><name><surname>Joshi</surname><given-names>U</given-names></name><name><surname>Semenza</surname><given-names>GL</given-names></name><name><surname>Hoekstra</surname><given-names>OS</given-names></name><name><surname>Lammertsma</surname><given-names>AA</given-names></name><name><surname>Molthoff</surname><given-names>CF</given-names></name><article-title>Biologic correlates of (18) fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in human breast cancer measured by positron emission tomography</article-title><source>J Clin Oncol</source><year>2002</year><volume>20</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>379</fpage><lpage>387</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1200/JCO.20.2.379</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">11786564</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><name><surname>Wahl</surname><given-names>RL</given-names></name><name><surname>Cody</surname><given-names>RL</given-names></name><name><surname>Hutchins</surname><given-names>GD</given-names></name><name><surname>Mudgett</surname><given-names>EE</given-names></name><article-title>Primary and metastatic breast carcinoma: initial clinical evaluation with PET with the radiolabeled glucose analogue 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose</article-title><source>Radiology</source><year>1991</year><volume>179</volume><issue>3</issue><fpage>765</fpage><lpage>770</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">2027989</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><name><surname>Aukema</surname><given-names>TS</given-names></name><name><surname>Rutgers</surname><given-names>EJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Vogel</surname><given-names>WV</given-names></name><name><surname>Teertstra</surname><given-names>HJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Oldenburg</surname><given-names>HS</given-names></name><name><surname>Vrancken Peeters</surname><given-names>MT</given-names></name><name><surname>Wesseling</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Russell</surname><given-names>NS</given-names></name><name><surname>Valdés Olmos</surname><given-names>RA</given-names></name><article-title>The role of FDG PET/CT in patients with locoregional breast cancer recurrence: a comparison to conventional imaging techniques</article-title><source>Eur J Surg Oncol</source><year>2010</year><volume>36</volume><issue>4</issue><fpage>387</fpage><lpage>392</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.ejso.2009.11.009</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19962268</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><name><surname>Dirisamer</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Halpern</surname><given-names>BS</given-names></name><name><surname>Flory</surname><given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Wolf</surname><given-names>F</given-names></name><name><surname>Beheshti</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Mayerhoefer</surname><given-names>ME</given-names></name><name><surname>Langsteger</surname><given-names>W</given-names></name><article-title>Integrated contrast-enhanced diagnostic whole-body PET/CT as a first-line restaging modality in patients with suspected metastatic recurrence of breast cancer</article-title><source>Eur J Radiol</source><year>2010</year><volume>73</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>294</fpage><lpage>299</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.10.031</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19181468</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><name><surname>Eubank</surname><given-names>WB</given-names></name><name><surname>Mankoff</surname><given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Bhattacharya</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Gralow</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Linden</surname><given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Ellis</surname><given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Lindsley</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Austin-Seymour</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Livingston</surname><given-names>R</given-names></name><article-title>Impact of FDG PET on defining the extent of disease and on the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer</article-title><source>AJR Am J Roentgenol</source><year>2004</year><volume>183</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>479</fpage><lpage>486</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2214/ajr.183.2.1830479</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15269044</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><name><surname>Evangelista</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Baretta</surname><given-names>Z</given-names></name><name><surname>Vinante</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Cervino</surname><given-names>AR</given-names></name><name><surname>Gregianin</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Ghiotto</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Saladini</surname><given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Sotti</surname><given-names>G</given-names></name><article-title>Tumour markers and FDG PET/CT for prediction of disease relapse in patients with breast cancer</article-title><source>Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging</source><year>2011</year><volume>38</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>293</fpage><lpage>301</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s00259-010-1626-7</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">20882280</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><name><surname>Grahek</surname><given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Montravers</surname><given-names>F</given-names></name><name><surname>Kerrou</surname><given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Aide</surname><given-names>N</given-names></name><name><surname>Lotz</surname><given-names>JP</given-names></name><name><surname>Talbot</surname><given-names>JN</given-names></name><article-title>[18F]FDG in recurrent breast cancer: diagnostic performances, clinical impact and relevance of induced changes in management</article-title><source>Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging</source><year>2004</year><volume>31</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>179</fpage><lpage>188</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s00259-003-1348-1</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15129699</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><name><surname>Pan</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Han</surname><given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Sun</surname><given-names>X</given-names></name><name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Gang</surname><given-names>H</given-names></name><article-title>FDG-PET and other imaging modalities for the evaluation of breast cancer recurrence and metastases: a meta-analysis</article-title><source>J Cancer Res Clin Oncol</source><year>2010</year><volume>136</volume><issue>7</issue><fpage>1007</fpage><lpage>1022</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s00432-009-0746-6</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">20091186</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><name><surname>Pennant</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Takwoingi</surname><given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Pennant</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Davenport</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Fry-Smith</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Eisinga</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Andronis</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Arvanitis</surname><given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Deeks</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Hyde</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name><article-title>A systematic review of positron emission tomography (PET) and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for the diagnosis of breast cancer recurrence</article-title><source>Health Technol Assess</source><year>2010</year><volume>14</volume><issue>50</issue><fpage>1</fpage><lpage>103</lpage></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><name><surname>Radan</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Ben-Haim</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Bar-Shalom</surname><given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Guralnik</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Israel</surname><given-names>O</given-names></name><article-title>The role of FDG-PET/CT in suspected recurrence of breast cancer</article-title><source>Cancer</source><year>2006</year><volume>107</volume><issue>11</issue><fpage>2545</fpage><lpage>2551</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1002/cncr.22292</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17063499</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><name><surname>Veit-Haibach</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>Antoch</surname><given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Beyer</surname><given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Stergar</surname><given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Schleucher</surname><given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Hauth</surname><given-names>EA</given-names></name><name><surname>Bockisch</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><article-title>FDG-PET/CT in restaging of patients with recurrent breast cancer: possible impact on staging and therapy</article-title><source>Br J Radiol</source><year>2007</year><volume>80</volume><issue>955</issue><fpage>508</fpage><lpage>515</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1259/bjr/17395663</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17537758</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><name><surname>Vranjesevic</surname><given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Filmont</surname><given-names>JE</given-names></name><name><surname>Meta</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Silverman</surname><given-names>DH</given-names></name><name><surname>Phelps</surname><given-names>ME</given-names></name><name><surname>Rao</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Valk</surname><given-names>PE</given-names></name><name><surname>Czernin</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><article-title>Whole-body (18)F-FDG PET and conventional imaging for predicting outcome in previously treated breast cancer patients</article-title><source>J Nucl Med</source><year>2002</year><volume>43</volume><issue>3</issue><fpage>325</fpage><lpage>329</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">11884491</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><name><surname>Evangelista</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Cervino</surname><given-names>AR</given-names></name><name><surname>Ghiotto</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Al-Nahhas</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Rubello</surname><given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Muzzio</surname><given-names>PC</given-names></name><article-title>Tumor marker-guided PET in breast cancer patients-a recipe for a perfect wedding: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis</article-title><source>Clin Nucl Med</source><year>2012</year><volume>37</volume><issue>5</issue><fpage>467</fpage><lpage>474</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1097/RLU.0b013e31824850b0</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">22475896</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><name><surname>Santiago</surname><given-names>JF</given-names></name><name><surname>Gonen</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Yeung</surname><given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Macapinlac</surname><given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Larson</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><article-title>A retrospective analysis of the impact of 18 F-FDG PET scans on clinical management of 133 breast cancer patients</article-title><source>Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging</source><year>2006</year><volume>50</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>61</fpage><lpage>67</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16557205</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><name><surname>Kalff</surname><given-names>V</given-names></name><name><surname>Hicks</surname><given-names>RJ</given-names></name><name><surname>MacManus</surname><given-names>MP</given-names></name><name><surname>Binns</surname><given-names>DS</given-names></name><name><surname>McKenzie</surname><given-names>AF</given-names></name><name><surname>Ware</surname><given-names>RE</given-names></name><name><surname>Hogg</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Ball</surname><given-names>DL</given-names></name><article-title>Clinical impact of (18)F fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: a prospective study</article-title><source>J Clin Oncol</source><year>2001</year><volume>19</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>111</fpage><lpage>118</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">11134203</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><name><surname>Filippi</surname><given-names>V</given-names></name><name><surname>Malamitsi</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Vlachou</surname><given-names>F</given-names></name><name><surname>Laspas</surname><given-names>F</given-names></name><name><surname>Georgiou</surname><given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Prassopoulos</surname><given-names>V</given-names></name><name><surname>Andreou</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><article-title>The impact of FDG-PET/CT on the management of breast cancer patients with elevated tumor markers and negative or equivocal conventional imaging modalities</article-title><source>Nucl Med Commun</source><year>2011</year><volume>32</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>85</fpage><lpage>90</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1097/MNM.0b013e328341c898</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">21127445</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><name><surname>Grassetto</surname><given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Fornasiero</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Otello</surname><given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Bonciarelli</surname><given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Rossi</surname><given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Nashimben</surname><given-names>O</given-names></name><name><surname>Minicozzi</surname><given-names>AM</given-names></name><name><surname>Crepaldi</surname><given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Pasini</surname><given-names>F</given-names></name><name><surname>Facci</surname><given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Mandoliti</surname><given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Marzola</surname><given-names>MC</given-names></name><name><surname>Al-Nahhas</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Rubello</surname><given-names>D</given-names></name><article-title>18 F-FDG-PET/CT in patients with breast cancer and rising Ca 15-3 with negative conventional imaging: a multicentre study</article-title><source>Eur J Radiol</source><year>2010</year><volume>80</volume><issue>3</issue><fpage>828</fpage><lpage>833</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">20547020</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B20"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><name><surname>Murakami</surname><given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Kumita</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Yoshida</surname><given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Ishihara</surname><given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Kiriyama</surname><given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Hakozaki</surname><given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Yanagihara</surname><given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Iida</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Tsuchiya</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><article-title>FDG-PET/CT in the diagnosis of recurrent breast cancer</article-title><source>Acta Radiol</source><year>2011</year><volume>53</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>12</fpage><lpage>16</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">22067206</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B21"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><name><surname>Hicks</surname><given-names>RJ</given-names></name><article-title>Should positron emission tomography/computed tomography be the first rather than the last test performed in the assessment of cancer?</article-title><source>Cancer Imaging</source><year>2012</year><volume>12</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>315</fpage><lpage>323</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1102/1470-7330.2012.9005</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23022990</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></pmc></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Asie/explor/AustralieFrV1/Data/Pmc/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001629 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Pmc/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001629 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Asie
|area= AustralieFrV1
|flux= Pmc
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé=
|texte=
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.33. |  |