Impact of 18F-FDG PET/MRI on Therapeutic Management of Women with Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer: Results from a Prospective Double-Center Trial.

Kai Jannusch, Lale Umutlu, Julian Kirchner, Nils-Martin Bruckmann, Janna Morawitz, Ken Herrmann, Wolfgang Peter Fendler, Ann-Kathrin Bittner, Oliver Hoffmann, Svjetlana Mohrmann, Eugen Ruckhäberle, Martin Stuschke, Werner Schmid, Frederik Giesel, Lena Häberle, Irene Esposito, Wilfried Budach, Johannes Grueneisen, Christiane Matuschek, Bernd Kowall, Andreas Stang, Gerald Antoch, Christian Buchbender
{"title":"Impact of <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/MRI on Therapeutic Management of Women with Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer: Results from a Prospective Double-Center Trial.","authors":"Kai Jannusch, Lale Umutlu, Julian Kirchner, Nils-Martin Bruckmann, Janna Morawitz, Ken Herrmann, Wolfgang Peter Fendler, Ann-Kathrin Bittner, Oliver Hoffmann, Svjetlana Mohrmann, Eugen Ruckhäberle, Martin Stuschke, Werner Schmid, Frederik Giesel, Lena Häberle, Irene Esposito, Wilfried Budach, Johannes Grueneisen, Christiane Matuschek, Bernd Kowall, Andreas Stang, Gerald Antoch, Christian Buchbender","doi":"10.2967/jnumed.124.268065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Our rationale was to investigate whether <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/MRI in addition to (guideline-recommended) conventional staging leads to changes in therapeutic management in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer and compare the diagnostic accuracy of <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/MRI with that of conventional staging for determining the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) stage. <b>Methods:</b> In this prospective, double-center study, 208 women with newly diagnosed, therapy-naïve invasive breast cancer were enrolled in accordance with the inclusion criteria. All patients underwent guideline-recommended conventional staging and whole-body <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/MRI with a dedicated breast examination. A multidisciplinary tumor board served to determine 2 different therapy recommendations for each patient, one based on conventional staging alone and another based on combined assessment of conventional staging and <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/MRI examinations. Major changes in therapy recommendations and differences between the conventional staging algorithm and <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/MRI for determining the correct UICC stage were reported and evaluated. <b>Results:</b> Major changes in therapeutic management based on combined assessment of conventional staging and <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/MRI were detected in 5 of 208 patients, amounting to changes in therapeutic management in 2.4% (95% CI, 0.78%-5.2%) of the study population. In determining the UICC stage, the guideline-based staging algorithm and <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/MRI were concordant in 135 of 208 (64.9%; 95% CI, 58%-71.4%) patients. The conventional guideline algorithm correctly determined the UICC stage in 130 of 208 (62.5%; 95% CI, 55.5%-69.1%) patients, and <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/MRI correctly determined the UICC stage in 170 of 208 (81.9%; 95% CI, 75.8%-86.7%) patients. <b>Conclusion:</b> Despite the diagnostic superiority of <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/MRI over conventional staging in determining the correct UICC stage, the current (guideline-recommended) conventional staging algorithm is sufficient for adequate therapeutic management of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, and <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/MRI does not have an impact on patient management.</p>","PeriodicalId":94099,"journal":{"name":"Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.124.268065","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Our rationale was to investigate whether 18F-FDG PET/MRI in addition to (guideline-recommended) conventional staging leads to changes in therapeutic management in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer and compare the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/MRI with that of conventional staging for determining the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) stage. Methods: In this prospective, double-center study, 208 women with newly diagnosed, therapy-naïve invasive breast cancer were enrolled in accordance with the inclusion criteria. All patients underwent guideline-recommended conventional staging and whole-body 18F-FDG PET/MRI with a dedicated breast examination. A multidisciplinary tumor board served to determine 2 different therapy recommendations for each patient, one based on conventional staging alone and another based on combined assessment of conventional staging and 18F-FDG PET/MRI examinations. Major changes in therapy recommendations and differences between the conventional staging algorithm and 18F-FDG PET/MRI for determining the correct UICC stage were reported and evaluated. Results: Major changes in therapeutic management based on combined assessment of conventional staging and 18F-FDG PET/MRI were detected in 5 of 208 patients, amounting to changes in therapeutic management in 2.4% (95% CI, 0.78%-5.2%) of the study population. In determining the UICC stage, the guideline-based staging algorithm and 18F-FDG PET/MRI were concordant in 135 of 208 (64.9%; 95% CI, 58%-71.4%) patients. The conventional guideline algorithm correctly determined the UICC stage in 130 of 208 (62.5%; 95% CI, 55.5%-69.1%) patients, and 18F-FDG PET/MRI correctly determined the UICC stage in 170 of 208 (81.9%; 95% CI, 75.8%-86.7%) patients. Conclusion: Despite the diagnostic superiority of 18F-FDG PET/MRI over conventional staging in determining the correct UICC stage, the current (guideline-recommended) conventional staging algorithm is sufficient for adequate therapeutic management of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, and 18F-FDG PET/MRI does not have an impact on patient management.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
18F-FDG PET/MRI 对新诊断乳腺癌妇女治疗管理的影响:一项前瞻性双中心试验的结果。
我们的目的是研究除了(指南推荐的)传统分期外,18F-FDG PET/MRI 是否会改变新诊断乳腺癌患者的治疗方法,并比较 18F-FDG PET/MRI 与传统分期在确定国际癌症控制联盟(UICC)分期方面的诊断准确性。研究方法在这项前瞻性双中心研究中,208 名新确诊、治疗无效的浸润性乳腺癌女性患者均符合纳入标准。所有患者都接受了指南推荐的常规分期和全身 18F-FDG PET/MRI,并进行了专门的乳腺检查。多学科肿瘤委员会为每位患者确定了两种不同的治疗建议,一种仅基于常规分期,另一种则基于常规分期和18F-FDG PET/MRI检查的综合评估。报告并评估了治疗建议的主要变化以及传统分期算法与 18F-FDG PET/MRI 在确定正确的 UICC 分期方面的差异。结果:根据常规分期和 18F-FDG PET/MRI 的综合评估,208 例患者中有 5 例患者的治疗方案发生了重大变化,占研究人群的 2.4%(95% CI,0.78%-5.2%)。在确定 UICC 分期时,基于指南的分期算法和 18F-FDG PET/MRI 在 208 例患者中的 135 例(64.9%;95% CI,58%-71.4%)中结果一致。常规指南算法正确确定了208例患者中130例(62.5%;95% CI,55.5%-69.1%)的UICC分期,18F-FDG PET/MRI正确确定了208例患者中170例(81.9%;95% CI,75.8%-86.7%)的UICC分期。结论:尽管 18F-FDG PET/MRI 在确定正确的 UICC 分期方面比传统分期更具诊断优势,但目前(指南推荐的)传统分期算法足以对新诊断的乳腺癌患者进行适当的治疗管理,18F-FDG PET/MRI 不会对患者管理产生影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Meningioma Revisited: Should Whole-Body Staging with [68Ga]Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT of High-Grade Meningiomas Become Standard Practice? SNMMI Procedure Standard/EANM Practice Guideline for Fibroblast Activation Protein (FAP) PET. Solving Challenging Puzzles: Heather Jacene Talks with Johannes Czernin About Leadership in Clinical Nuclear Medicine and the SNMMI. [11C]PS13 Demonstrates Pharmacologically Selective and Substantial Binding to Cyclooxygenase-1 in the Human Brain. Imaging of the Aging Human Brain.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1