Search

Background: Primary metastatic breast cancer (pMBC) accounts for 5–10% of annual breast cancers with a median survival of 3–4 years, varying among subtypes. In Denmark, the incidence of breast cancer increased until 2010, followed by a stabilisation. Several factors influencing pMBC incidence and survival, including screening prevalence, staging methods, and classification standards, remain pivotal but inadequately documented. Material and method: This retrospective observational study involving pMBC patients diagnosed between 2000 and 2020 encompassed all Danish oncology departments. Data from the Danish Breast Cancer Group database and the National Patient Register included diagnosis specifics, demographics, treatment, and follow-up. Results: Between 2000 and 2020, 3,272 patients were diagnosed with pMBC, a rise from 355 patients in 2000–2004 to 1,323 patients in 2015–2020. The increase was particularly observed in patients aged 70 years or older. Changes in tumour subtypes were observed, notably with a rise in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive cases but a steady distribution of estrogen receptor (ER) status. Diagnostic practices changed over the two decades, with 6% evaluated with PET/CT (positron emission tomography–computed tomography) or CT (computed tomography) with a bone evaluation in 2000–2004 and 65% in 2015–2020. Overall survival (OS) improved from 23 months in 2000–2004 to 33 months in 2015–2020. In patients with ER-positive and HER2-positive disease, the multivariable model showed improved survival by year of diagnosis, and further, patients with ER-negative/HER2-negative disease fared worse the first 2 years after diagnosis. Interpretation: Our study delineates changes in the treatment and survival of pMBC over two decades. Stage migration, screening introduction, and changes in registration practice, however, prevent a valid assessment of a possible causal relationship.

Abstract We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT compared to CE-CT for response monitoring in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. The study included 300 biopsy-verified MBC patients treated at Odense University Hospital (Denmark). CE-CT was used in 144 patients, 83 patients underwent 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT, and 73 patients received a combination of both. Hospital resource-based costs (2007–2019) were adjusted to the 2019 level. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated by comparing average costs per patient and gained survival with CE-CT. During a median follow-up of 33.0 months, patients in the 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT group had more short admissions (median 6 vs. 2) and fewer overnight admissions (5 vs. 12) compared to the CE-CT group. The mean total cost per patient was €91,547 for CE-CT, €83,965 for 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT, and €165,784 for the combined group. The ICER for 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT compared to CE-CT was €-527/month, indicating gaining an extra month of survival at a lower cost (€527). 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT was more cost-effective in patients with favorable prognostic factors (oligometastatic or estrogen receptor-positive disease), while CE-CT was more cost-effective in poor prognosis patients (liver/lung metastases or performance status ≥ 2 at baseline). In conclusion, our study suggests that 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT is a cost-effective modality for response monitoring in metastatic breast cancer.

Abstract This study aimed to compare CE-CT and 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT for response monitoring metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The primary objective was to predict progression-free and disease-specific survival for responders vs. non-responders on CE-CT and 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT. The secondary objective was to assess agreement between response categorization for the two modalities. Treatment response in women with MBC was monitored prospectively by simultaneous CE-CT and 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT, allowing participants to serve as their own controls. The standardized response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST 1.1) and PET response criteria in solid tumors (PERCIST) were used for response categorization. For prediction of progression-free and disease-specific survival, treatment response was dichotomized into responders (partial and complete response) and non-responders (stable and progressive disease) at the first follow-up scan. Progression-free survival was defined as the time from baseline until disease progression or death from any cause. Disease-specific survival was defined as the time from baseline until breast cancer-specific death. Agreement between response categorization for both modalities was analyzed for all response categories and responders vs. non-responders. At the first follow-up, tumor response was reported more often by 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT than CE-CT, with only fair agreement on response categorization between the two modalities (weighted Kappa 0.28). Two-year progression-free survival for responders vs. non-responders by CE-CT was 54.2% vs. 46.0%, compared with 59.1% vs. 14.3% by 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT. Correspondingly, 2-year disease-specific survival were 83.3% vs. 77.8% for CE-CT and 84.6% vs. 61.9% for 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT. Tumor response on 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT was significantly associated with progression-free (HR: 3.49, P

The study aimed to compare the metastatic pattern of breast cancer and the intermodality proportion of agreement between [18F]FDG-PET/CT and CE-CT. Women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) were enrolled prospectively and underwent a combined [18F]FDG-PET/CT and CE-CT scan to diagnose MBC. Experienced nuclear medicine and radiology physicians evaluated the scans blinded to the opposite scan results. Descriptive statistics were applied, and the intermodality proportion of agreement was used to compare [18F]FDG-PET/CT and CE-CT. In total, 76 women with verified MBC were enrolled in the study. The reported number of site-specific metastases for [18F]FDG-PET/CT vs. CE-CT was 53 (69.7%) vs. 44 (57.9%) for bone lesions, 31 (40.8%) vs. 43 (56.6%) for lung lesions, and 16 (21.1%) vs. 23 (30.3%) for liver lesions, respectively. The proportion of agreement between imaging modalities was 76.3% (95% CI 65.2–85.3) for bone lesions; 82.9% (95% CI 72.5–90.6) for liver lesions; 57.9% (95% CI 46.0–69.1) for lung lesions; and 59.2% (95% CI 47.3–70.4) for lymph nodes. In conclusion, bone and distant lymph node metastases were reported more often by [18F]FDG-PET/CT than CE-CT, while liver and lung metastases were reported more often by CE-CT than [18F]FDG-PET/CT. Agreement between scans was highest for bone and liver lesions and lowest for lymph node metastases.

We compared the image quality and quantification parameters through bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm (Q.Clear) and ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) algorithm for 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT scans performed for response monitoring in patients with metastatic breast cancer in prospective setting. We included 37 metastatic breast cancer patients diagnosed and monitored with 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT at Odense University Hospital (Denmark). A total of 100 scans were analyzed blinded toward Q.Clear and OSEM reconstruction algorithms regarding image quality parameters (noise, sharpness, contrast, diagnostic confidence, artefacts, and blotchy appearance) using a five-point scale. The hottest lesion was selected in scans with measurable disease, considering the same volume of interest in both reconstruction methods. SULpeak (g/mL) and SUVmax (g/mL) were compared for the same hottest lesion. There was no significant difference regarding noise, diagnostic confidence, and artefacts within reconstruction methods; Q.Clear had significantly better sharpness (p < 0.001) and contrast (p = 0.001) than the OSEM reconstruction, while the OSEM reconstruction had significantly less blotchy appearance compared with Q.Clear reconstruction (p < 0.001). Quantitative analysis on 75/100 scans indicated that Q.Clear reconstruction had significantly higher SULpeak (5.33 ± 2.8 vs. 4.85 ± 2.5, p < 0.001) and SUVmax (8.27 ± 4.8 vs. 6.90 ± 3.8, p < 0.001) compared with OSEM reconstruction. In conclusion, Q.Clear reconstruction revealed better sharpness, better contrast, higher SUVmax, and higher SULpeak, while OSEM reconstruction had less blotchy appearance.

Background The aim was to investigate and challenge the belief that swimming immediately after eating is dangerous and also to investigate what potentially could happen when swimming immediately after a meal. We wanted to explore feasibility and get background data to perform sample size calculations and choose outcome parameters for a full-scale randomized trial. Methods The trial was performed during lunch breaks at a medical writing course in Turkey in June 2022. Participants were randomised on the first trial day to swim 14 meters breaststroke immediately after lunch or wait 30 minutes after eating, with crossover on the second trial day. Main outcomes measures were mortality, and mood, discomfort, and adverse events were assessed in participant-reported questionnaires. Participants completed a Profile of Mood States-Adolescents questionnaire, a visual analogue scale for discomfort, and a questionnaire of adverse events after each swim. Results A total of 26 participants completed the trial. No cases of mortality, drowning, resuscitation, side stitch, or muscle cramps were reported. The participants reported no significant difference in their mood states after each swim and no significant difference was found regarding the participants’ swimming time (P = 0.53). However, more discomfort was reported when swimming immediately instead of 30 minutes after eating (P = 0.05). Conclusions It seems that swimming after eating is safe since no mortality or cramps were registered. However, a significant level of discomfort was found when swimming immediately after eating lunch. This feasibility trial provides background data for a future full-scale randomised trial. Clinicaltrials.gov registration NCT05401396 (25/05/2022).