Influence of CA 15-3 blood level and doubling time on diagnostic performances of 18F-FDG PET in breast cancer patients with occult recurrence

Pairwise comparison of 18F-FDG and 18F-FCH PET/CT in prostate cancer patients with rising PSA and known or suspected second malignancy

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of combining fluorine-18 choline (F-FCH) and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (F-FDG) PET/computed tomography (CT) in patients with rising prostate-specific antigen and known or suspected second malignancy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

F-FCH and F-FDG PET/CT were performed 15±9 days apart on the same PET/CT system and acquisition and reconstruction parameters. A mean standardized uptake value (SUVmean) was computed for every lesion that could be discriminated with both tracers. PET results were confirmed by histology (eight patients) and clinical and imaging follow-up (mean±SD: 15±9 months).

RESULTS

Of 77 consecutive patients who underwent F-FCH PET/CT scans for suspected prostate cancer recurrence, 10 (13%) were suspected to have a second malignancy because of F-FCH PET pattern inconsistency with that of prostate cancer (n=6), because of a history of a second malignancy with similar metastatic patterns (n=2) or inconsistency between disease burden and prostate-specific antigen value (n=2). Seventy lesions were studied, with a final diagnosis of prostate cancer, other cancers and benign disease in 55, nine and six lesions, respectively. F-FCH SUVmean and F-FCH/F-FDG SUVmean ratios were significantly different between prostate cancer, nonprostate cancer and benign disease (P<0.0001 and P=0.04, respectively). Receiving operating characteristic analysis showed that the F-FCH/F-FDG ratios were not better than F-FCH SUVmean in discriminating prostate cancer from nonprostate cancer and benign diseases (sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve were 69%, 80%, 0.71 and 84%, 80% and 0.89, respectively).

CONCLUSION

We found that F-FCH/F-FDG SUVmean ratios cannot differentiate prostate cancer recurrences from other cancer types when both diagnoses are suspected. Doubtful lesions should be biopsied.

Tumor marker-guided PET in breast cancer patients-a recipe for a perfect wedding: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Early detection of breast cancer (BC) recurrence is a fundamental issue during follow-up. Although the utilization of new therapeutic protocols aimed at reducing the recurrence risk is defined, the diagnostic approach for early detection remains to be clarified. We aim to provide a critical overview of recently published reports and perform a meta-analysis on the use of tumor markers in BC patients as a guide for fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) imaging.

METHODS

Medline and Google Scholar were used for searching English and non-English articles that evaluate the role of PET in BC recurrence when an increase in tumor markers is found. All complete studies were reviewed; thus, quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed.

RESULTS

From 2001 to May 2011, we found 19 complete articles that critically evaluated the role of PET in BC recurrence detection in the presence of elevated tumor markers. The meta-analysis of the 13 studies provided the following results: pooled sensitivity 0.878 (95% CI: 0.838-0.909), pooled specificity 0.693 (95% CI: 0.553-0.805), and pooled accuracy 0.828 (95% CI: 0.762-0.878).

CONCLUSIONS

The current experience confirms the potential of fluorodeoxyglucose PET, and in particular of PET/CT, in detecting occult soft tissue and bone metastases in the presence of a progressive increase of serum tumor markers in BC patients, but this should be better defined in the current practical recommendations.

Prevalence of positive FDG-PET findings in patients with high CEA levels

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of positive findings of positron emission tomography (PET) with 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) in patients with high serum CEA levels.

METHODS

A total of 303 patients who had undergone an FDG-PET scan in our institution with high serum CEA levels were analyzed. The prevalence of positive PET findings was evaluated with regard to a previous history of malignancy, absolute value of CEA levels, and the time course of CEA levels (an increasing or decreasing pattern, a change divided by time (DeltaCEA) and doubling time of CEA).

RESULTS

Of 303 patients, 232 were confirmed to have malignancy, and the patient-based sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy of PET were 87, 86, 95, 66, and 86%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in positive rates according to the history of previous malignancy. The prevalence of PET-positive cases was higher with an increase in absolute CEA levels, and more than 90% of the patients were positive when CEA levels were more than 20 ng/ml. The DeltaCEA was significantly higher and the doubling time was significantly shorter in patients with positive results than those with negative results.

CONCLUSIONS

A high value of serum CEA levels was correlated with a higher prevalence of positive PET findings. FDG-PET scans would be justified in patients with high serum CEA levels, regardless of whether there was or was not a previous history of malignancy.

FDG-PET and other imaging modalities for the evaluation of breast cancer recurrence and metastases: a meta-analysis

Background and purpose

Breast carcinoma is the most common cancer in female patients with a propensity for recurrence and metastases. The accuracy of ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), scintimammography (SMM) and positron emission tomography (PET) in diagnosing the recurrent and/or breast cancer has never been systematically assessed, and present systematic review was aimed at this issue.

Methods

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for articles dealt with detection of recurrent and/or metastatic breast cancer by US, CT, MRI, SMM or PET whether interpreted with or without the use of CT. Histopathologic analysis and/or close clinical and imaging follow-up for at least 6 months were used as golden reference. We extracted data to calculate sensitivity, specificity, summary receiver operating characteristic curves and area under the curve and to test for heterogeneity.

Result

In 42 included studies, US and MRI had highest pooled specificity (0.962 and 0.929, respectively); MRI and PET had highest pooled sensitivity (0.9500 and 0.9530, respectively). The AUC of US, CT, MRI, SMM and PET was 0.9251, 0.8596, 0.9718, 0.9386 and 0.9604, respectively. Results of pairwise comparison between each modality demonstrated that AUC of MRI and PET was higher than that of US or CT, p < 0.05. No statistical significance was found between MRI and PET. There was heterogeneity among studies and evidence of publication bias.

Conclusion

In conclusion, MRI seemed to be a more useful supplement to current surveillance techniques to assess patients with suspected recurrent and/or metastatic breast cancer. If MRI shows an indeterminate or benign lesion or MRI was not applicable, FDG-PET could be performed in addition.