The Role of ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT in the Management of Patients with High-Risk Breast Cancer: Case Series and Guideline Comparison

Ben F. Bulten, Marie J. de Haas, Haiko J. Bloemendal, Adriaan J. van Overbeeke, Jan Paul Esser, Henk J. Baarslag, Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei, C. J. Rodenburg, John M. H. de Klerk

Department of Oncology, Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Department of Radiology, Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Department of Surgery, Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.

DOI: 10.4236/ami.2014.43005                

Abstract

Objectives: In grade III-IV breast cancer, dissemination of disease needs to be assessed. Until now this was done by conventional imaging (liver ultrasonography, chest X-ray and bone scintigraphy), but evidence favoring the use of FDG-PET/CT is accumulating. Methods: Patients with high-risk breast cancer, who had received conventional imaging and FDG-PET/CT, were included. Patients were staged and assigned a treatment after 1) conventional imaging and 2) FDG-PET/CT, both by a multidisciplinary oncology team. Equivocal FDG-PET/CT findings were histologically confirmed. Results: 16 patients were included (mean age 59 years). TNM-stage changed in 5 patients (31%) after FDG-PET/CT. In 3 patients (19%) unknown distant metastases were detected by FDG-PET/CT. An adjustment of treatment took place in 4 patients (25%). Conclusions: Our case series emphasizes the role of FDG-PET/CT in the staging of high-risk breast carcinoma, especially in the assessment of distant metastases. We suggest replacing conventional imaging with FDG-PET/CT.

Keywords

Breast Cancer, FDG-PET/CT, Staging, Dissemination, Guidelines

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Ferlay, J., Steliarova-Foucher, E., Lortet-Tieulent, J., Rosso, S., Coebergh, J.W., Comber, H., et al. (2013) Cancer Incidence and Mortality Patterns in Europe: Estimates for 40 Countries in 2012. European Journal of Cancer, 49, 1374-1403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2012.12.027
[2]	Aukema, T.S., Rutgers, E.J., Vogel, W.V., Teertstra, H.J., Oldenburg, H.S., Vrancken Peeters, M.T., et al. (2010) The Role of FDG PET/CT in Patients with Locoregional Breast Cancer Recurrence: A Comparison to Conventional Imaging Techniques. European Journal of Surgical Oncology, 36, 387-392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2009.11.009
[3]	Fuster, D., Duch, J., Paredes, P., Velasco, M., Munoz, M., Santamaria, G., et al. (2008) Preoperative Staging of Large Primary Breast Cancer with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Compared with Conventional Imaging Procedures. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 26, 4746-4751. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.17.1496
[4]	Mahner, S., Schirrmacher, S., Brenner, W., Jenicke, L., Habermann, C.R., Avril, N., et al. (2008) Comparison between Positron Emission Tomography Using 2-[Fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose, Conventional Imaging and Computed Tomography for Staging of Breast Cancer. Annals of Oncology, 19, 1249-1254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdn057
[5]	National Breast Cancer Consultation Group (2012) National Guideline Breast Cancer. www.oncoline.nl
[6]	Puglisi, F., Follador, A., Minisini, A.M., Cardellino, G.G., Russo, S., Andreetta, C., et al. (2005) Baseline Staging Tests after a New Diagnosis of Breast Cancer: Further Evidence of Their Limited Indications. Annals of Oncology, 16, 263-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdi063
[7]	van der Hoeven, J.J., Krak, N.C., Hoekstra, O.S., Comans, E.F., Boom, R.P., van Geldere, D., et al. (2004) 18F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose Positron Emission Tomography in Staging of Locally Advanced Breast Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22, 1253-1259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.07.058
[8]	Koolen, B.B., Vrancken Peeters, M.J., Aukema, T.S., Vogel, W.V., Oldenburg, H.S., van der Hage, J.A., et al. (2012) 18F-FDG PET/CT as a Staging Procedure in Primary Stage II and III Breast Cancer: Comparison with Conventional Imaging Techniques. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 131, 117-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1767-9
[9]	Pennant, M., Takwoingi, Y., Pennant, L., Davenport, C., Fry-Smith, A., Eisinga, A., et al. (2010) A Systematic Review of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) for the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer Recurrence. Health Technology Assessment, 14, 1-103.
[10]	Cancer, N.C.C.F. (2009) Advanced Breast Cancer: Diagnosis and Treatment.
[11]	Fanggiday, J.C., Staaks, G.H.A., de Haas, M.J., Schaefer-Prokop, C.M. and de Klerk, J.M.H. (2011) Discordancy in CT and PET in Detection and Follow Up of Bone Metastases in a Patient with Small Cell Lung Cancer. Dutch Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 33, 558-560.
[12]	Senkus, E., Kyriakides, S., Penault-Llorca, F., Poortmans, P., Thompson, A., Zackrisson, S., et al. (2013) Primary Breast Cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-Up. Annals of Oncology, 24, vi7-vi23.
[13]	Carlson, R.W., Allred, D.C., Anderson, B.O., Burstein, H.J., Carter, W.B., Edge, S.B., et al. (2009) Breast Cancer. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 7, 122-192.