Publication | Open Access
Can 18F-Fluoroestradiol positron emission tomography become a new imaging standard in the estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer patient: A prospective comparative study with 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography?
34
Citations
15
References
2017
Year
Correct staging is the most crucial for the treatment outcome in cancer management. Molecular imaging with <sup>18</sup>F-fluoroestradiol (FES) positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) targets estrogen receptor (ER) and may have a higher incremental value in diagnosis by aiding specificity. We enrolled 12 female breast cancer patients prospectively and did <sup>18</sup>F-FES PET-CT and <sup>18</sup>F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET-CT within 1 week interval time. Lesion detection sensitivity was compared for a total number of lesions and for nonhepatic lesions only by McNemar test. <sup>18</sup>F-FES PET-CT was taken as reference in case of indeterminate lesions. The incremental value reported by identifying <sup>18</sup>F-FES exclusive lesions and by characterization of <sup>18</sup>F-FDG indeterminate lesions. Spearman rank test was used to correlate ER expression and maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax). Two ER-negative patients with no <sup>18</sup>F-FES uptake were excluded. Ten ER-positive patients with 154 disease lesions were finally analyzed. <sup>18</sup>F-FDG picked-up 142 lesions (sensitivity 92.21%), whereas <sup>18</sup>F-FES picked-up 116 lesions (sensitivity 75.32%) and this difference was statistically significant. For nonhepatic lesions (<i>n</i> = 136) detectability, <sup>18</sup>F-FDG picked-up 124 (sensitivity 91.18%), whereas <sup>18</sup>F-FES picked-up 116 (sensitivity 85.29%) lesions and this difference was not statistically significant. Beside 12 exclusive lesions, <sup>18</sup>F-FES characterized 41 (27.5%) <sup>18</sup>F-FDG indeterminate lesions. Overall <sup>18</sup>F-FES impacted 20% patient management. The positive trend was also seen with <sup>18</sup>F-FES SUVmax with ER expression and negative with <sup>18</sup>F-FDG SUVmax. We conclude, <sup>18</sup>F-FDG has overall better sensitivity than <sup>18</sup>F-FES PET-CT, however for nonhepatic metastasis difference was not significant. <sup>18</sup>F-FES PET-CT better-characterized lesions and impacted 20% patient management. Therefore, <sup>18</sup>F-FES PET-CT should be used with <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET-CT in strongly ER expressing patients for better specificity.
| Year | Citations | |
|---|---|---|
Page 1
Page 1