| Title |
What is the diagnostic performance of 18-FDG-PET/MR compared to PET/CT for the N- and M- staging of breast cancer?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Radiology, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00330-018-5720-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Diomidis Botsikas, Ilias Bagetakos, Marlise Picarra, Ana Carolina Da Cunha Afonso Barisits, Sana Boudabbous, Xavier Montet, Giang Thanh Lam, Ismini Mainta, Anastasia Kalovidouri, Minerva Becker |
| Abstract |
To compare the diagnostic performance of 18-FDG-PET/MR and PET/CT for the N- and M- staging of breast cancer. Two independent readers blinded to clinical/follow-up data reviewed PET/MR and PET/CT examinations performed for initial or recurrent breast cancer staging in 80 consecutive patients (mean age = 48 ± 12.9 years). The diagnostic confidence for lesions in the contralateral breast, axillary/internal mammary nodes, bones and other distant sites were recorded. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated. The standard of reference included pathology and/or follow-up > 12 months. Nine of 80 patients had bone metastases; 13/80 had other distant metastases, 44/80 had axillary, 9/80 had internal mammary and 3/80 had contralateral breast tumours. Inter-reader agreement for lesions was excellent (weighted kappa = 0.833 for PET/CT and 0.823 for PET/MR) with similar reader confidence for the two tests (ICC = 0.875). In the patient-per-patient analysis, sensitivity and specificity of PET/MRI and PET/CT were similar (p > 0.05). In the lesion-per-lesion analysis, the sensitivity of PET/MR and PET/CT for bone metastases, other metastases, axillary and internal mammary nodes, contralateral tumours and all lesions together was 0.924 and 0.6923 (p = 0.0034), 0.923 and 0.923 (p = 1), 0.854 and 0.812 (p = 0.157), 0.9 and 0.9 (p = 1), 1 and 0.25 (p = 0.083), and 0.89 and 0.77 (p = 0.0013) respectively. The corresponding specificity was 0.953 and 1 (p = 0.0081), 1 and 1 (p = 1), 0.893 and 0.92 (p = 0.257), 1 and 1 (p = 1), 0.987 and 0.99 (p = 1) and 0.96 and 0.98 (p = 0.0075) respectively. Reader confidence, inter-reader agreement and diagnostic performance per patient were similar with PET/MR and PET/CT. However, for all lesions together, PET/MR had a superior sensitivity and lower specificity in the lesion-per-lesion analysis. • N and M breast cancer staging performance of PET/MR and PET/CT is similar per patient. • In a lesion-per-lesion analysis PET/MR is more sensitive than PET/CT especially for bone metastasis. • Readers' diagnostic confidence is similar for both tests. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 14 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 34% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 15 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 October 2018.
All research outputs
#17,991,384
of 23,105,443 outputs
Outputs from European Radiology
#2,853
of 4,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,088
of 341,609 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Radiology
#49
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,105,443 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,186 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,609 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.