Table 2: Studies comparing PET-CT to conventional imaging for detection of metastatic breast cancer.

Author

Year

Journal

Imaging modality

Patient group

n

Results:              PET-CT

Results: Conventional

Koolen et al.

2012

Breast Cancer Res Treat

PET-CT versus conventional imaging (CXR, liver u/s, BS)

Stage II and III  scheduled for neoadjuvant

154

Sensitivity        100

Specificity          96

PPV                      80

NPV                   100

Accuracy            97

 

Niikura et al.

2011

The Oncologist

PET-CT versus conventional imaging (CXR, CT-TAP, BS)

Stage I-IV

225

Sensitivity       97.4

Specificity       91.2

 

85.9

67.3

Riegger et al.

2011

Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging

PET-CT versus  conventional imaging (CXR, liver u/s, BS)

Stage I-IV

106

Sensitivity          75

Specificity          97

PPV                      80

NPV                     96

Accuracy            93

50

98

80

92

90

Fuster  et al.

2008

JCO

PET-CT versus conventional imaging (chest CT, liver u/s, BS)

Patients with tumours>3cm

60

Sensitivity        100

Specificity          98

60

83

Groheux et al.

2012

JNCI

PET-CT

Stage II and III

254

Upstaged disease:

Stage IIA            2.3

Stage IIB          10.7

Stage IIIA        17.5

Stage IIIB        36.5

Stage IIIC        47.1

 

Morris et al.

2010

JCO

PET-CT versus BS

Suspected metastatic disease

163

Concordant findings – 81%

PET CT outperformed BS in studies which were disconcordant

 

Gunalp et al.

2012

ExpTher Med

PET-CT versus conventional imaging (CXR, CT A/P, BS)

Initial staging of 141 pre-op and 195 post-op patients

336

Upstaged disease:

Stage IIA          29%

Stage IIB         46%

Stage IIIA       58%

Stage IIIB        100%

 

Choi et al.

2012

J Breast Cancer

PET-CT versus conventional imaging (CXR, liver US, BS)

biopsy-proven BC patients

154

Sensitivity      100%

Specificity     96.4%

61.5%

99.2%

Heusner et al.

2008

J Nucl Med

PET-CT versus conventional imaging (CXR, US abdomen, BS)

Suspected malignancy

40

Detected metastases in 100% of cases

 

70%

Garami et al.

2012

EJSO

PET-CT versus conventional imaging (CXR, US abdomen, BS)

Confirmed BC with no signs of mets on conventional imaging

115

Detected metastases in 8 patients (7%). Changed TMN classification in 54 patients (47%)

 

No metastases detected

Bernsdorf et al.

2012

Annals of Oncology

PET-CT versus conventional imaging (CXR and mammography)

Newly diagnosed BC

103

Detected metastases in 6 patients (6%) missed by conventional imaging

Upstaging in 14 (14%)

Change in treatment in 8 (8%)

 

Total

 

 

 

 

1710