HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) CME Test (opens in a new window) Submit a response View responses Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Eubank, W. B. Articles by Livingston, R. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Eubank, W. B. Articles by Livingston, R. B. Related Collections Breast (Imaging and Interventional) Nuclear Medicine

Detection of Locoregional and Distant Recurrences in Breast Cancer Patients by Using FDG PET¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology (S-113-RAD), Puget Sound Health Care System, 1660 S Columbian Way, Seattle, WA 98108-1597 (W.B.E.); and the Department of Radiology (W.B.E., D.A.M., H.J.V., J.F.E.), Division of Nuclear Medicine (D.A.M., H.J.V., J.F.E., E.K.S., L.K.D.), Department of Radiation Oncology (S.K.L., M.M.A.S.), and Division of Medical Oncology (J.R.G., G.K.E., R.B.L.), University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle. Received March 12, 2001; revision requested May 21 and received June 25; accepted July 2. Supported in part by grants CA42045 and CA72064 from the National Institutes of Health. Address correspondence to W.B.E. (e-mail: weubank@u.washington.edu).

Cases of recurrence of breast cancer can pose considerable diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for the oncologic team. The prognosis and management decisions are based on knowledge of the true extent of disease. Conventional staging methods, including physical examination, assessment of levels of tumor markers, cross-sectional imaging, and bone scintigraphy, may not reliably demonstrate the extent of disease in all cases. Physical examination and cross-sectional imaging (computed tomography [CT] or magnetic resonance imaging) can be problematic because (a) the sequelae of previous surgery and radiation therapy can be difficult to distinguish from recurrent neoplasms and (b) early metastatic disease (small lesions) can be difficult to distinguish from benign lesions that are too small to characterize. Positron emission tomography (PET) with 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) can help clarify inconclusive findings from physical examination and cross-sectional imaging. FDG PET is more sensitive than CT in detection of lymphatic spread of disease to locoregional and mediastinal nodes. Metastases at distant sites including the lung, bone, and the liver are also readily detected at FDG PET. FDG PET has been proved accurate in restaging cases of recurrent breast cancer and will likely aid in directing therapy in these cases.

© RSNA, 2002

Index Terms: Breast neoplasms, diagnosis, 00.32 • Breast neoplasms, metastases, **.33² • Breast neoplasms, PET, 00.12163 • Breast neoplasms, radionuclide studies, 00.12163, 00.12166 • Fluorine, radioactive, 00.12163, 00.12166

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Mahner, S. Schirrmacher, W. Brenner, L. Jenicke, C. R. Habermann, N. Avril, and J. Dose-Schwarz Comparison between positron emission tomography using 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose, conventional imaging and computed tomography for staging of breast cancer Ann. Onc., July 1, 2008; 19(7): 1249 - 1254. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. H. Youk, E.-K. Kim, M. J. Kim, and K. K. Oh Imaging Findings of Chest Wall Lesions on Breast Sonography J. Ultrasound Med., January 1, 2008; 27(1): 125 - 138. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P Veit-Haibach, G Antoch, T Beyer, H Stergar, R Schleucher, E A M Hauth, and A Bockisch FDG-PET/CT in restaging of patients with recurrent breast cancer: possible impact on staging and therapy Br. J. Radiol., July 1, 2007; 80(955): 508 - 515. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. J. Kelloff, J. M. Hoffman, B. Johnson, H. I. Scher, B. A. Siegel, E. Y. Cheng, B. D. Cheson, J. O'Shaughnessy, K. Z. Guyton, D. A. Mankoff, et al. Progress and Promise of FDG-PET Imaging for Cancer Patient Management and Oncologic Drug Development Clin. Cancer Res., April 15, 2005; 11(8): 2785 - 2808. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. B. Eubank, D. Mankoff, M. Bhattacharya, J. Gralow, H. Linden, G. Ellis, S. Lindsley, M. Austin-Seymour, and R. Livingston Impact of FDG PET on Defining the Extent of Disease and on the Treatment of Patients with Recurrent or Metastatic Breast Cancer Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2004; 183(2): 479 - 486. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. M. Kim and J. M. Park Normal and Abnormal US Findings at the Mastectomy Site RadioGraphics, March 1, 2004; 24(2): 357 - 365. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Agress Jr and B. Z. Cooper Detection of Clinically Unexpected Malignant and Premalignant Tumors with Whole-Body FDG PET: Histopathologic Comparison Radiology, February 1, 2004; 230(2): 417 - 422. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

eLetters: