Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Diagnostics (Basel). 2019 Aug 27;9(3). pii: E106. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics9030106.

FDG-PET/CT Versus Contrast-Enhanced CT for Response Evaluation in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Author information

1
Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense, Denmark.
2
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Odense University Hospital, 5000 Odense, Denmark.
3
Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, 5000 Odense, Denmark.
4
Centre for Personalized Response Monitoring in Oncology (PREMIO), 5000 Odense, Denmark.
5
Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense, Denmark. Malene.grubbe.hildebrandt@rsyd.dk.
6
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Odense University Hospital, 5000 Odense, Denmark. Malene.grubbe.hildebrandt@rsyd.dk.
7
Centre for Personalized Response Monitoring in Oncology (PREMIO), 5000 Odense, Denmark. Malene.grubbe.hildebrandt@rsyd.dk.
8
Centre for Innovative Medical Technology, Odense University Hospital, 5000 Odense, Denmark. Malene.grubbe.hildebrandt@rsyd.dk.

Abstract

18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with integrated computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) can be used for response evaluation in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). In this study, we aimed to review literature comparing the PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) in patients with MBC. We made a systematic search in Embase, PubMed/Medline, and Cochrane Library using a modified PICO model. The population was MBC patients and the intervention was PERCIST or RECIST. Quality assessment was performed using the QUADAS-2 checklist. A total of 1975 articles were identified. After screening by title/abstract, 78 articles were selected for further analysis of which 2 duplicates and 33 abstracts/out of focus articles were excluded. The remaining 43 articles provided useful information, but only one met the inclusion and none of the exclusion criteria. This was a retrospective study of 65 patients with MBC showing one-year progression-free survival for responders versus non-responders to be 59% vs. 27% (p = 0.2) by RECIST compared to 64% vs. 0% (p = 0.0001) by PERCIST. This systematic literature review identified a lack of studies comparing the use of RECIST (with CE-CT) and PERCIST (with FDG-PET/CT) for response evaluation in metastatic breast cancer. The available sparse literature suggests that PERCIST might be more appropriate than RECIST for predicting prognosis in patients with MBC.

KEYWORDS:

CE-CT; FDG-PET/CT; PERCIST; RECIST; metastatic breast cancer; response evaluation

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center