Skip to content
2000
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Current Medical Imaging
  4. Volume 20, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1573-4056
  • E-ISSN: 1875-6603
file format pdf download PDF
side by side viewer icon HTML

Abstract

Objective

The primary objective of this study was to conduct a comparative analysis of the diagnostic efficacy of [18F]-FDG PET/CT and [18F]-FDG PET/MRI in the detection of breast cancer lymph node metastasis.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive search on PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases, encompassing eligible articles until March 2023. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for [18F]-FDG PET/CT and [18F]-FDG PET/MRI have been reported as estimates with 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) using a bivariate random-effect model. Utilizing the I square (I2) statistic, heterogeneity among pooled studies was evaluated. The quality assessment of the included studies was conducted using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) methodology.

Results

We included 18 studies (2057 patients). The sensitivity, specificity, and AUC (Area Under the Curve) values of [18F]-FDG PET/CT for overall lymph node metastasis in breast cancer have been found to be 0.58 (0.39 - 0.75), 0.83 (0.69-0.92), and 0.79 (0.75-0.82), respectively. Correspondingly, the values for [18F]-FDG PET/MRI were found to be 0.76 (0.60-0.88), 0.85 (0.77-0.91), and 0.89 (0.86-0.91), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values of [18F]-FDG PET/CT for axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer were 0.52 (0.37-0.67), 0.84 (0.68-0.92), and 0.73 (0.69-0.76), respectively. Correspondingly, the values for [18F]-FDG PET/MRI were 0.84 (0.76-0.89), 0.87 (0.75-0.94), and 0.86 (0.83-0.89), respectively.

Conclusion

This study has suggested [18F]-FDG PET/MRI to have greater diagnostic power than [18F]-FDG PET/CT in detecting lymph node metastasis in breast cancer. However, the [18F]-FDG PET/MRI results have been obtained from a small sample size study, and more and larger prospective studies are needed for further confirmation on this issue.

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Bentham Science Publisher.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056304849240702071319
2024-01-01
2025-05-12

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056304849240702071319
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
The full text of this item is not currently available.

References

  1. YamagishiY. YamasakiT. IshidaJ. MoriyaT. EinamaT. KoiwaiT. Fukumura-KogaM. KonoT. HayashiK. UenoH. YamamotoJ. TsudaH. Utility of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography fusion imaging for prediction of metastasis to sentinel and nonsentinel nodes in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer.Ann. Surg. Oncol.20202782698271010.1245/s10434‑020‑08269‑032124121
     [Google Scholar]
  2. WangJ. LiaoQ. ZhangY. YuC. BaiR. SunH. Differential diagnosis of axillary inflammatory and metastatic lymph nodes in rabbit models by using diffusion-weighted imaging: compared with conventional magnetic resonance imaging.Korean J. Radiol.201213445846610.3348/kjr.2012.13.4.45822778568
     [Google Scholar]
  3. MorawitzJ. BruckmannN.M. DietzelF. UllrichT. BittnerA.K. HoffmannO. MohrmannS. HäberleL. IngenwerthM. UmutluL. FendlerW.P. FehmT. HerrmannK. AntochG. SawickiL.M. KirchnerJ. Determining the axillary nodal status with four current imaging modalities including 18F-FDG PET/MRI in newly diagnosed breast cancer: A comparative study using histopathology as reference standard.J. Nucl. Med.202162121677168310.2967/jnumed.121.26200934016726
     [Google Scholar]
  4. XueF. JiangJ. Dynamic enhanced magnetic resonance imaging versus ultrasonic diffused optical tomography in early diagnosis of breast cancer.J. Healthc. Eng.202220221710.1155/2022/483459435449832
     [Google Scholar]
  5. JacksonR.S. MylanderC. RosmanM. AndradeR. SawyerK. SandersT. TafraL. Normal axillary ultrasound excludes heavy nodal disease burden in patients with breast cancer.Ann. Surg. Oncol.201522103289329510.1245/s10434‑015‑4717‑726224404
     [Google Scholar]
  6. SalemA.E. FineG.C. CovingtonM.F. KoppulaB.R. WigginsR.H. HoffmanJ.M. MortonK.A. PET-CT in clinical adult oncology—IV. gynecologic and genitourinary malignancies.Cancers20221412300010.3390/cancers1412300035740665
     [Google Scholar]
  7. AyanaG. DeseK. ChoeS. Transfer learning in breast cancer diagnoses via ultrasound imaging.Cancers202113473810.3390/cancers1304073833578891
     [Google Scholar]
  8. PesapaneF. SuterM.B. RotiliA. PencoS. NigroO. CremonesiM. BellomiM. Jereczek-FossaB.A. PinottiG. CassanoE. Will traditional biopsy be substituted by radiomics and liquid biopsy for breast cancer diagnosis and characterisation?Med. Oncol.20203742910.1007/s12032‑020‑01353‑132180032
     [Google Scholar]
  9. HanS. ChoiJ.Y. Impact of 18F-FDG PET, PET/CT, and PET/MRI on staging and management as an initial staging modality in breast cancer.Clin. Nucl. Med.202146427128210.1097/RLU.000000000000350233651022
     [Google Scholar]
  10. AktaşA. GürleyikM.G. Aydın AksuS. AkerF. GüngörS. Diagnostic value of axillary ultrasound, MRI, and <sup>18</sup>F-FDG-PET/ CT in determining axillary lymph node status in breast cancer patients.Eur. J. Breast Health2022181374710.4274/ejbh.galenos.2021.2021‑3‑1035059590
     [Google Scholar]
  11. ShawkyM. AliZ.A.E. HashemD.H. HouseniM. Role of positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in breast cancer.Egypt. J. Radiol. Nucl. Med.2020511
     [Google Scholar]
  12. OrsariaP. ChiaravallotiA. CareddaE. MarcheseP.V. TitkaB. AnemonaL. PortarenaI. SchillaciO. PetrellaG. PalombiL. BuonomoO.C. Evaluation of the usefulness of FDG-PET/CT for nodal staging of breast cancer.Anticancer Res.201838126639665210.21873/anticanres.1303130504372
     [Google Scholar]
  13. OzenA. AltinayS. EkmekciogluO. AlbayrakR. MuhammedogluA. YigitbasH. BastugE. CelikA. Dual-time 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging in initial locoregional staging of breast carcinoma: Comparison with conventional imaging and pathological prognostic factors.Indian J. Surg.201678538238910.1007/s12262‑016‑1486‑x27994334
     [Google Scholar]
  14. KitajimaK. FukushimaK. MiyoshiY. KatsuuraT. IgarashiY. KawanakaY. MouriM. MaruyamaK. YamanoT. DoiH. YamakadoK. HirotaS. HirotaS. Diagnostic and prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT for axillary lymph node staging in patients with breast cancer.Jpn. J. Radiol.201634322022810.1007/s11604‑015‑0515‑126715510
     [Google Scholar]
  15. KumarR. ChallaV.R. SrivastavaA. DharA. ParshadR. BalC. GonaR.M.R. GuptaS.D. SharmaP. Role of fluorine-18-labeled 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography in the evaluation of axillary lymph node involvement in operable breast cancer in comparison with sentinel lymph node biopsy.Indian J. Nucl. Med.201328313814310.4103/0972‑3919.11954224250021
     [Google Scholar]
  16. RieggerC. KoeningerA. HartungV. OtterbachF. KimmigR. ForstingM. BockischA. AntochG. HeusnerT.A. Comparison of the diagnostic value of FDG-PET/CT and axillary ultrasound for the detection of lymph node metastases in breast cancer patients.Acta Radiol.201253101092109810.1258/ar.2012.11063523002144
     [Google Scholar]
  17. JeongY.J. KangD.Y. YoonH.J. SonH.J. Additional value of F-18 FDG PET/CT for initial staging in breast cancer with clinically negative axillary nodes.Breast Cancer Res. Treat.2014145113714210.1007/s10549‑014‑2924‑824682676
     [Google Scholar]
  18. KongE.J. ChunK.A. ChoI.H. LeeS.J. 18F-FDG PET/CT with contrast enhancement for evaluation of axillary lymph node involvement in T1 breast cancer.Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging201044317017610.1007/s13139‑010‑0035‑y24899946
     [Google Scholar]
  19. MonzawaS. AdachiS. SuzukiK. HirokagaK. TakaoS. SakumaT. HaniokaK. Diagnostic performance of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography of breast cancer in detecting axillary lymph node metastasis: comparison with ultrasonography and contrast-enhanced CT.Ann. Nucl. Med.2009231085586110.1007/s12149‑009‑0314‑919876704
     [Google Scholar]
  20. DulgerogluO. ArikanA.E. KaraH. UrasC. Impact of preoperative PET/CT for axillary staging in patients with early breast cancer.Ann. Ital. Chir.20229350450936254759
     [Google Scholar]
  21. BotsikasD. BagetakosI. PicarraM. Da Cunha Afonso BarisitsA.C. BoudabbousS. MontetX. LamG.T. MaintaI. KalovidouriA. BeckerM. 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.20192941787179810.1007/s00330‑018‑5720‑830267154
     [Google Scholar]
  22. BruckmannN.M. SawickiL.M. KirchnerJ. MartinO. UmutluL. HerrmannK. FendlerW. BittnerA.K. HoffmannO. MohrmannS. DietzelF. IngenwerthM. SchaarschmidtB.M. LiY. KowallB. StangA. AntochG. BuchbenderC. Prospective evaluation of whole-body MRI and 18F-FDG PET/MRI in N and M staging of primary breast cancer patients.Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging202047122816282510.1007/s00259‑020‑04801‑232333068
     [Google Scholar]
  23. KirchnerJ. MartinO. UmutluL. HerrmannK. BittnerA.K. HoffmannO. MohrmannS. GaulerT. TheurerS. AntkeC. EspositoI. KinnerS. SchaarschmidtB.M. KowallB. Lütke-BrintrupD. StangA. BeckerA.S. AntochG. BuchbenderC. Impact of 18F-FDG PET/MR on therapeutic management in high risk primary breast cancer patients – A prospective evaluation of staging algorithms.Eur. J. Radiol.202012810897510.1016/j.ejrad.2020.10897532371185
     [Google Scholar]
  24. UmutluL. KirchnerJ. BruckmannN.M. MorawitzJ. AntochG. IngenwerthM. BittnerA.K. HoffmannO. HauboldJ. GrueneisenJ. QuickH.H. RischplerC. HerrmannK. GibbsP. Pinker-DomenigK. Multiparametric integrated 18F-FDG PET/MRI-based radiomics for breast cancer phenotyping and tumor decoding.Cancers20211312292810.3390/cancers1312292834208197
     [Google Scholar]
  25. MorawitzJ. BruckmannN.M. DietzelF. UllrichT. BittnerA.K. HoffmannO. RuckhäberleE. MohrmannS. HäberleL. IngenwerthM. AbrarD.B. SawickiL.M. BreuckmannK. FendlerW.P. HerrmannK. BuchbenderC. AntochG. UmutluL. KirchnerJ. Comparison of nodal staging between CT, MRI, and [18F]-FDG PET/MRI in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer.Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging2022493992100110.1007/s00259‑021‑05502‑034476552
     [Google Scholar]
  26. GrueneisenJ. NagarajahJ. BuchbenderC. HoffmannO. SchaarschmidtB.M. PoeppelT. ForstingM. QuickH.H. UmutluL. KinnerS. Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging for local tumor staging in patients with primary breast cancer.Invest. Radiol.201550850551310.1097/RLI.000000000000019726115367
     [Google Scholar]
  27. MelsaetherA.N. RaadR.A. PujaraA.C. PonzoF.D. PysarenkoK.M. JhaveriK. BabbJ.S. SigmundE.E. KimS.G. MoyL.A. 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.Radiology2016281119320210.1148/radiol.201615115527023002
     [Google Scholar]
  28. CatalanoO.A. NicolaiE. RosenB.R. LuongoA. CatalanoM. IannaceC. GuimaraesA. VangelM.G. MahmoodU. SoricelliA. SalvatoreM. Comparison of CE-FDG-PET/CT with CE-FDG-PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients.Br. J. Cancer201511291452146010.1038/bjc.2015.11225871331
     [Google Scholar]
  29. de PerrotT. RagerO. SchefflerM. LordM. PusztaszeriM. IselinC. RatibO. ValleeJ.P. Potential of hybrid 18F-fluorocholine PET/MRI for prostate cancer imaging.Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging20144191744175510.1007/s00259‑014‑2786‑724841413
     [Google Scholar]
  30. MaJ.T. HanC.B. ZhengJ.H. SunH.Z. ZhangS.M. XinJ. GuoQ.Y. Hybrid PET/MRI-based delineation of gross tumor volume in head and neck cancer and tumor parameter analysis.Nucl. Med. Commun.201738764264910.1097/MNM.000000000000068728489688
     [Google Scholar]
  31. BuchbenderC. HeusnerT.A. LauensteinT.C. BockischA. AntochG. Oncologic PET/MRI, part 1: tumors of the brain, head and neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis.J. Nucl. Med.201253692893810.2967/jnumed.112.10533822582048
     [Google Scholar]
  32. MingY. WuN. QianT. LiX. WanD.Q. LiC. LiY. WuZ. WangX. LiuJ. WuN. Progress and future trends in PET/CT and PET/MRI molecular imaging approaches for breast cancer.Front. Oncol.202010130110.3389/fonc.2020.0130132903496
     [Google Scholar]
  33. ZhangX. LiuY. LuoH. ZhangJ. PET / CT and MRI for identifying axillary lymph node metastases in breast cancer patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis.J. Magn. Reson. Imaging20205261840185110.1002/jmri.2724632567090
     [Google Scholar]
  34. LiangX. YuJ. WenB. XieJ. CaiQ. YangQ. MRI and FDG-PET/CT based assessment of axillary lymph node metastasis in early breast cancer: A meta-analysis.Clin. Radiol.201772429530110.1016/j.crad.2016.12.00128139203
     [Google Scholar]
  35. LiZ. GaoY. GongH. FengW. MaQ. LiJ. LuX. WangX. LeiJ. Different imaging modalities for the diagnosis of axillary lymph node metastases in breast cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.J. Magn. Reson. Imaging20235751392140310.1002/jmri.2839936054564
     [Google Scholar]
  36. LyK.H. Costedoat-ChalumeauN. LiozonE. DumonteilS. DucroixJ.P. SaillerL. LidoveO. BienvenuB. DecauxO. HatronP.Y. SmailA. AstudilloL. MorelN. BoutemyJ. PerlatA. DenesE. LambertM. PapoT. CypierreA. VidalE. PreuxP.M. MonteilJ. FauchaisA.L. Diagnostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT vs. chest-abdomen-pelvis CT scan in management of patients with fever of unknown origin, inflammation of unknown origin or episodic fever of unknown origin: A comparative multicentre prospective study.J. Clin. Med.202211238610.3390/jcm1102038635054081
     [Google Scholar]
  37. RuanD. SunL. Diagnostic performance of PET/MRI in breast cancer: A systematic review and bayesian bivariate meta-analysis.Clin. Breast Cancer202323210812410.1016/j.clbc.2022.11.01036549970
     [Google Scholar]
  38. LuX.R. QuM.M. ZhaiY.N. FengW. GaoY. LeiJ.Q. Diagnostic role of 18F-FDG PET/MRI in the TNM staging of breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Ann. Palliat. Med.20211044328433710.21037/apm‑20‑255533894709
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056304849240702071319
Loading
Comparison of the Performance of [18F]-FDG PET/CT and [18F]-FDG PET/MRI for Lymph Node Metastasis in Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Curr. Med. Imaging 20, e15734056304849 (2024); https://doi.org/10.2174/0115734056304849240702071319
/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056304849240702071319
/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056304849240702071319
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

PRISMA checklist will be available as supplementary material on the publisher’s website along with the published article.

file format download Download

  • Article Type:     Research Article
Keyword(s): [18F]-FDG PET/CT; [18F]-FDG PET/MRI; Breast cancer; Meta-analysis; Metastasis; Tumors

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test