Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Head-to-head comparison of 18F-FDG and 18F-FES PET/CT for initial staging of ER-positive breast cancer patients
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Head-to-head comparison of 18F-FDG and 18F-FES PET/CT for initial staging of ER-positive breast cancer patients
Do you wish to request the book?
Head-to-head comparison of 18F-FDG and 18F-FES PET/CT for initial staging of ER-positive breast cancer patients
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Head-to-head comparison of 18F-FDG and 18F-FES PET/CT for initial staging of ER-positive breast cancer patients
2023
Overview
PurposeTo compare the diagnostic performance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) and 18F-fluoroestradiol (18F-FES) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for initial staging of estrogen receptor (ER) positive breast cancer.MethodsTwenty-eight patients with ER-positive breast cancer underwent 18F-FDG and 18F-FES PET/CT for initial staging. Diagnostic performance and concordance rates were analyzed for both radiotracers. Semiquantitative parameters of maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and tumor-to-normal ratio (T/N ratio) were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Factors potentially affecting the degree of radiotracer uptake were analyzed by multi-level linear regression analysis.ResultsThe overall diagnostic performance of 18F-FES was comparable to 18F-FDG, except for higher specificity and NPV, with sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of 87.56%, 100%, 100%, 35.14%, and 88.35%, respectively, for 18F-FES and 83.94%, 30.77%, 94.74%, 11.43%, and 95.37%, respectively, for 18F-FDG. Diagnostic performance of strong ER expression was better in 18F-FES but worse for 18F-FDG. There was a correlation of mucinous cell type and Allred score 7–8 with 18F-FES uptake, with correlation coefficients of 26.65 (19.28, 34.02), 5.90 (− 0.005, 11.81), and p-value of < 0.001, 0.05, respectively. Meanwhile, luminal B and Ki-67 were related to 18F-FDG uptake, with correlation coefficients of 2.76 (1.10, 0.20), 0.11 (0.01, 0.2), and p-value of 0.018, 0.025, respectively.ConclusionDiagnostic performance of 18F-FES is comparable to 18F-FDG, but better for strongly ER-positive breast cancer. Combination of 18F-FES and 18F-FDG would potentially overcome the limitations of each tracer with more accurate staging.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
