This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wahl, R. L. Articles by Gatsonis, C. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wahl, R. L. Articles by Gatsonis, C. G. Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

Prospective Multicenter Study of Axillary Nodal Staging by Positron Emission Tomography in Breast Cancer: A Report of the Staging Breast Cancer With PET Study Group

From The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI; Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO; Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; and Brown University of Medicine, Providence, RI

Address reprint requests to Richard L. Wahl, MD, Division of Nuclear Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Room 3223 JHOC, 601 N Caroline St, Baltimore, MD 21287; e-mail: rwahl{at}jhmi.edu

PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy of positron emission tomography with fluorine-18–labeled 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG-PET) in detecting axillary nodal metastases in women with primary breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective multicenter study, 360 women with newly diagnosed invasive breast cancer underwent FDG-PET. Images were blindly interpreted by three experienced readers for abnormally increased axillary FDG uptake. Imaging results from 308 assessable axillae were compared with axillary node pathology.

RESULTS: For detecting axillary nodal metastasis, the mean estimated area under the receiver operator curve for the three readers was 0.74 (range, 0.70 to 0.76). If at least one probably or definitely abnormal axillary focus was considered positive, the mean (and range) sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for PET were 61% (54% to 67%), 80% (79% to 81%), 62% (60% to 64%), and 79% (76% to 81%), respectively. False-negative axillae on PET had significantly smaller and fewer tumor-positive lymph nodes (2.7) than true-positive axillae (5.1; P < .005). Semiquantitative analysis of axillary FDG uptake showed that a nodal standardized uptake value (lean body mass) more than 1.8 had a positive predictive value of 90%, but a sensitivity of only 32%. Finding two or more intense foci of tracer uptake in the axilla was highly predictive of axillary metastasis (78% to 83% positive predictive value), albeit insensitive (27%).

CONCLUSION: FDG-PET has moderate accuracy for detecting axillary metastasis but often fails to detect axillae with small and few nodal metastases. Although highly predictive for nodal tumor involvement when multiple intense foci of tracer uptake are identified, FDG-PET is not routinely recommended for axillary staging of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer.

Supported by RO1CA66560, awarded by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health.

Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest are found at the end of this article.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. L. Wahl, H. Jacene, Y. Kasamon, and M. A. Lodge From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors J. Nucl. Med., May 1, 2009; 50(Suppl_1): 122S - 150S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. H. Lee, E. L. Rosen, and D. A. Mankoff The Role of Radiotracer Imaging in the Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Breast Cancer: Part 1--Overview, Detection, and Staging J. Nucl. Med., April 1, 2009; 50(4): 569 - 581. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Carkaci, H. A. Macapinlac, M. Cristofanilli, O. Mawlawi, E. Rohren, A. M. Gonzalez Angulo, S. Dawood, E. Resetkova, H. T. Le-Petross, and W.-T. Yang Retrospective Study of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the Diagnosis of Inflammatory Breast Cancer: Preliminary Data J. Nucl. Med., February 1, 2009; 50(2): 231 - 238. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Ben-Haim and P. Ell 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in the Evaluation of Cancer Treatment Response J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2009; 50(1): 88 - 99. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Taira, S. Ohsumi, D. Takabatake, F. Hara, S. Takashima, K. Aogi, S. Takashima, T. Inoue, S. Sugata, and R. Nishimura Determination of Indication for Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Clinical Node-negative Breast Cancer Using Preoperative 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Fusion Imaging Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol., January 1, 2009; 39(1): 16 - 21. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S.-Y. Shiu and C. Gatsonis The predictive receiver operating characteristic curve for the joint assessment of the positive and negative predictive values Phil Trans R Soc A, July 13, 2008; 366(1874): 2313 - 2333. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]

				N. C. Hodgson and K. Y. Gulenchyn Is There a Role for Positron Emission Tomography in Breast Cancer Staging? J. Clin. Oncol., February 10, 2008; 26(5): 712 - 720. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. D. Nathanson, M. Burke, R. Slater, and A. Kapke Preoperative Identification of the Sentinel Lymph Node in Breast Cancer Ann. Surg. Oncol., November 1, 2007; 14(11): 3102 - 3110. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. J. A. Margolis, J. M. Hoffman, R. J. Herfkens, R. B. Jeffrey, A. Quon, and S. S. Gambhir Molecular Imaging Techniques in Body Imaging Radiology, November 1, 2007; 245(2): 333 - 356. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. L. Rosen, W. B. Eubank, and D. A. Mankoff FDG PET, PET/CT, and Breast Cancer Imaging RadioGraphics, October 1, 2007; 27(suppl_1): S215 - S229. [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]

				U Veronesi, C De Cicco, V. Galimberti, J. Fernandez, N Rotmensz, G Viale, G Spano, A Luini, M Intra, P Veronesi, et al. A comparative study on the value of FDG-PET and sentinel node biopsy to identify occult axillary metastases Ann. Onc., March 1, 2007; 18(3): 473 - 478. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. M. Blodgett, C. C. Meltzer, and D. W. Townsend PET/CT: Form and Function Radiology, February 1, 2007; 242(2): 360 - 385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Tafra Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and Mammography (PEM) for Breast Cancer: Importance to Surgeons Ann. Surg. Oncol., January 1, 2007; 14(1): 3 - 13. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Chung, D. Liou, S. Karlan, A. Waxman, K. Fujimoto, M. Hagiike, and E. H. Phillips Preoperative FDG-PET for Axillary Metastases in Patients With Breast Cancer Arch Surg, August 1, 2006; 141(8): 783 - 789. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. R. Port, H. Yeung, M. Gonen, L. Liberman, J. Caravelli, P. Borgen, and S. Larson 18F-2-Fluoro-2-Deoxy-D-Glucose Positron Emission Tomography Scanning Affects Surgical Management in Selected Patients With High-Risk, Operable Breast Carcinoma Ann. Surg. Oncol., May 1, 2006; 13(5): 677 - 684. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Tran, B. S. Pio, B. Khatibi, J. Czernin, M. E. Phelps, and D. H.S. Silverman 18F-FDG PET for Staging Breast Cancer in Patients with Inner-Quadrant Versus Outer-Quadrant Tumors: Comparison with Long-Term Clinical Outcome J. Nucl. Med., September 1, 2005; 46(9): 1455 - 1459. [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]

				A. Quon and S. S. Gambhir FDG-PET and Beyond: Molecular Breast Cancer Imaging J. Clin. Oncol., March 10, 2005; 23(8): 1664 - 1673. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Luini, G. Gatti, B. Ballardini, S. Zurrida, V. Galimberti, P. Veronesi, A. R. Vento, S. Monti, G. Viale, G. Paganelli, et al. Development of axillary surgery in breast cancer Ann. Onc., February 1, 2005; 16(2): 259 - 262. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Younes-Mhenni, M. F. Janier, L. Cinotti, J. C. Antoine, F. Tronc, V. Cottin, P. J. Ternamian, P. Trouillas, and J. Honnorat FDG-PET improves tumour detection in patients with paraneoplastic neurological syndromes Brain, October 1, 2004; 127(10): 2331 - 2338. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. R. Port and H. S. Cody III Editorial: Don't Give up your Gamma Probe Ann. Surg. Oncol., September 1, 2004; 11(9): 813 - 814. [Full Text] [PDF]