Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Comparing the diagnostic efficacy of [18F]FDG PET/CT and [18F]FDG PET/MRI for detecting bone metastases in breast cancer: a meta-analysis Cover

Comparing the diagnostic efficacy of [18F]FDG PET/CT and [18F]FDG PET/MRI for detecting bone metastases in breast cancer: a meta-analysis

Radiology and Oncology
Volume 57 (2023): Issue 3 (September 2023)
By: Longjie Xia,  Jianqin Lai,  Di Huang,  Shenghui Qiu,  Huiqiong Hu,  Yunxiang Luo and  Jie Cao  
Open Access
|Jul 2023

References

  1. Torre LA, Islami F, Siegel RL, Ward EM, Jemal A. Global cancer in women: burden and trends. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017; 26: 444–57. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.Epi-16-0858
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  2. Ahmed A, Glynne-Jones R, Ell PJ. Skeletal scintigraphy in carcinoma of the breast – a ten year retrospective study of 389 patients. Nucl Med Commun 1990; 11: 421–6. doi: 10.1097/00006231-199006000-00004
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  3. Hortobagyi GN, Theriault RL, Lipton A, Porter L, Blayney D, Sinoff C, et al. Long-term prevention of skeletal complications of metastatic breast cancer with pamidronate. Protocol 19 Aredia Breast Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 2038–44. doi: 10.1200/jco.1998.16.6.2038
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  4. Roberts CC, Daffner RH, Weissman BN, Bancroft L, Bennett DL, Blebea JS, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria on metastatic bone disease. J Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7: 400–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2010.02.015
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  5. Rong J, Wang S, Ding Q, Yun M, Zheng Z, Ye S. Comparison of 18 FDG PET-CT and bone scintigraphy for detection of bone metastases in breast cancer patients. A meta-analysis. Surg Oncol 2013; 22: 86–91. doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2013.01.002
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  6. Evangelista L, Cuppari L, Burei M, Zorz A, Caumo F. Head-to-head comparison between 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI in breast cancer. Clin Transl Imaging 2019; 7: 99–104. doi: 10.1007/s40336-019-00319-2
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  7. Choi YJ, Shin YD, Kang YH, Lee MS, Lee MK, Cho BS, et al. The Effects of pre-operative (18)F-FDG PET/CT in breast cancer patients in comparison to the conventional imaging Study. J Breast Cancer 2012; 15: 441–8. doi: 10.4048/jbc.2012.15.4.441
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  8. Evangelista L, Cervino AR, Ghiotto C, Al-Nahhas A, Rubello D, Muzzio PC. Tumor marker-guided PET in breast cancer patients-a recipe for a perfect wedding: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Clin Nucl Med 2012; 37: 467–74. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0b013e31824850b0
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  9. Botsikas D, Bagetakos I, Picarra M, Da Cunha Afonso Barisits AC, Boudabbous S, Montet X, et al. What is the diagnostic performance of 18-FDG-PET/MR compared to PET/CT for the N- and M-staging of breast cancer? Eur Radiol 2018; 29: 1787–98. doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5720-8
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  10. Melsaether AN, Raad RA, Pujara AC, Ponzo FD, Pysarenko KM, Jhaveri K, et al. Comparison of whole-body (18)F FDG PET/MR imaging and whole-body (18)F FDG PET/CT in terms of lesion detection and radiation dose in patients with breast cancer. Radiology 2016; 281: 193–202. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016151155
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  11. Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Buchbender C, Nagarajah J, Umutlu L, et al. Evaluation of 18F-FDG PET/MRI, 18F-FDG PET/CT, MRI, and CT in whole-body staging of recurrent breast cancer. Eur J Radiol 2016; 85: 459–65. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.12.010
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  12. McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, McGrath TA, Bossuyt PM, Clifford T, et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. Jama 2018; 319: 388–96. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.19163
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  13. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155: 529–36. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  14. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1539–58. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  15. Catalano OA, Nicolai E, Rosen BR, Luongo A, Catalano M, Iannace C, et al. Comparison of CE-FDG-PET/CT with CE-FDG-PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer 2015; 112: 1452–60. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2015.112
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  16. Bruckmann NM, Kirchner J, Umutlu L, Fendler WP, Seifert R, Herrmann K, et al. Prospective comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/MRI, MRI, CT, and bone scintigraphy for the detection of bone metastases in the initial staging of primary breast cancer patients. Eur Radiol 2021; 31: 8714–24. doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-07956-0
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  17. Balci TA, Koc ZP, Komek H. Bone scan or F-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography; which modality better shows bone metastases of breast cancer? Breast Care 2012; 7: 389–93. doi: 10.1159/000341559
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  18. Hahn S, Heusner T, Kümmel S, Köninger A, Nagarajah J, Müller S, et al. Comparison of FDG-PET/CT and bone scintigraphy for detection of bone metastases in breast cancer. Acta Radiol 2011; 52: 1009–14. doi: 10.1258/ar.2011.100507
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  19. Manohar K, Mittal BR, Senthil R, Kashyap R, Bhattacharya A, Singh G. Clinical utility of F-18 FDG PET/CT in recurrent breast carcinoma. Nucl Med Commun 2012; 33: 591–6. doi: 10.1097/MNM.0b013e3283516716
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  20. Demir SS, Aktas GE, Yenici FU. A Lesion based and sub-regional comparison of FDG PET/CT and MDP bone scintigraphy in detection of bone metastasis in breast cancer. Curr Med Imaging 2017; 13: 422–30. doi: 10.2174/1573405613666170126121221
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  21. Niikura N, Hashimoto J, Kazama T, Koizumi J, Ogiya R, Terao M, et al. Diagnostic performance of F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT and bone scintigraphy in breast cancer patients with suspected bone metastasis. Breast Cancer 2016; 23: 662–7. doi: 10.1007/s12282-015-0621-z
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  22. Riegger C, Herrmann J, Nagarajah J, Hecktor J, Kuemmel S, Otterbach F, et al. Whole-body FDG PET/CT is more accurate than conventional imaging for staging primary breast cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012; 39: 852–63. doi: 10.1007/s00259-012-2077-0
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  23. Rager O, Lee-Felker SA, Tabouret-Viaud C, Felker ER, Poncet A, Amzalag G, et al. Accuracy of whole-body HDP SPECT/CT, FDG PET/CT, and their combination for detecting bone metastases in breast cancer: an intra-personal comparison. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2018; 8: 159–68. PMID: 30042868
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  24. Hansen JA, Naghavi-Behzad M, Gerke O, Baun C, Falch K, Duvnjak S, et al. Diagnosis of bone metastases in breast cancer: lesion-based sensitivity of dual-timepoint FDG-PET/CT compared to low-dose CT and bone scintigraphy. PLoS ONE 2021; 16: e0260066. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260066
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  25. Niikura N, Costelloe CM, Madewell JE, Hayashi N, Yu TK, Liu J, et al. FDG-PET/CT compared with conventional imaging in the detection of distant metastases of primary breast cancer. Oncologist 2011; 16: 1111–9. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0089
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  26. Shawky M, Ali ZAE, Hashem DH, Houseni M. Role of positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in breast cancer. Egipt J Radiol Nucl Med 2020; 51: 125. doi: 10.1186/s43055-020-00244-9
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  27. Teke F, Teke M, Inal A, Kaplan MA, Kucukoner M, Aksu R, et al. Significance of hormone receptor status in comparison of 18F-FDG-PET/CT and 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy for evaluating bone metastases in patients with breast cancer: single center experience. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2015; 16: 387–91. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.1.387
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  28. Zhang C, Liang Z, Liu W, Zeng X, Mo Y. Comparison of whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI for distant metastases in patients with malignant tumors: a meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 2023; 23: 37. doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-10493-8
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  29. Wu LM, Gu HY, Zheng J, Xu X, Lin LH, Deng X, et al. Diagnostic value of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 34: 128–35. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22608
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  30. Bruckmann NM, Morawitz J, Fendler WP, Ruckhäberle E, Bittner AK, Giesel FL, et al. A role of PET/MR in breast cancer? Semin Nucl Med 2022; 52: 611–8. doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2022.01.003
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  31. Tabouret-Viaud C, Botsikas D, Delattre BM, Mainta I, Amzalag G, Rager O, et al. PET/MR in breast cancer. Semin Nucl Med 2015; 45: 304–21. doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2015.03.003
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  32. Pfannenberg C, Schwenzer N. Whole-body staging of malignant melanoma: advantages, limitations and current importance of PET-CT, whole-body MRI and PET-MRI. Radiologe 2015; 55: 120–6. doi: 10.1007/s00117-014-2762-z
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
  33. Tunariu N, Blackledge M, Messiou C, Petralia G, Padhani A, Curcean S, et al. What's new for clinical whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) in the 21st century. Br J Radiol 2020; 93: 20200562. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20200562
    Open DOISearch in Google ScholarBack to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/raon-2023-0037 | Journal eISSN: 1581-3207 | Journal ISSN: 1318-2099
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 299 - 309
Submitted on: Apr 1, 2023
Accepted on: Jun 15, 2023
Published on: Jul 26, 2023
Published by: Association of Radiology and Oncology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
[18F]FDG PET/CT,
[18F]FDG PET/MRI,
bone metastases,
breast cancer,
meta-analysis
Related subjects:
Medicine,
Clinical medicine,
Internal medicine,
Haematology, oncology,
Radiology

© 2023 Longjie Xia, Jianqin Lai, Di Huang, Shenghui Qiu, Huiqiong Hu, Yunxiang Luo, Jie Cao, published by Association of Radiology and Oncology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 57 (2023): Issue 3 (September 2023)Next article