Back to Search Start Over

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

Authors :
Fredrik Helland
Martine Hallin Henriksen
Oke Gerke
Marianne Vogsen
Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen
Malene Grubbe Hildebrandt
Source :
Diagnostics, Vol 9, Iss 3, p 106 (2019)
Publication Year :
2019
Publisher :
MDPI AG, 2019.

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.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
20754418
Volume :
9
Issue :
3
Database :
Directory of Open Access Journals
Journal :
Diagnostics
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
edsdoj.237e3de2790a41d383734b5fe89ec561
Document Type :
article
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics9030106