Value of 18F-FES PET in Solving Clinical Dilemmas in Breast Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Study
Breast cancer (BC) is a heterogeneous disease in which estrogen receptor (ER) expression plays an important role in most tumors. A clinical dilemma may arise when a metastasis biopsy to determine the ER status cannot be performed safely or when ER heterogeneity is suspected between tumor lesions. Wh...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978) 2021-09, Vol.62 (9), p.1214 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | 1214 |
container_title | The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978) |
container_volume | 62 |
creator | Boers, Jorianne Loudini, Naila Brunsch, Celina L Koza, Sylvia A de Vries, Erik FJ Glaudemans, Andor WJM Hospers, Geke AP Schröder, Carolina P |
description | Breast cancer (BC) is a heterogeneous disease in which estrogen receptor (ER) expression plays an important role in most tumors. A clinical dilemma may arise when a metastasis biopsy to determine the ER status cannot be performed safely or when ER heterogeneity is suspected between tumor lesions. Whole-body ER imaging, such as 16α-18F-fluoro-17β-estradiol (18F-FES) PET, may have added value in these situations. However, the role of this imaging technique in routine clinical practice remains to be further determined. Therefore, we assessed whether the physician's remaining clinical dilemma after the standard workup was solved by the 18F-FES PET scan. Methods: This retrospective study included 18F-FES PET scans of patients who had (or were suspected to have) ER-positive metastatic BC and for whom a clinical dilemma remained after the standard workup. The scans were performed at the University Medical Center of Groningen between November 2009 and January 2019. We investigated whether the physician's clinical dilemma was solved, defined either as solving the clinical dilemma through the 18F-FES PET results or as basing a treatment decision directly on the 18F-FES PET results. In addition, the category of the clinical dilemma was reported, as well as the rate of 18F-FES–positive or –negative PET scans, and any correlation to the frequency of solved dilemmas was determined. Results: One hundred 18F-FES PET scans were performed on 83 patients. The clinical dilemma categories were inability to determine the extent of metastatic disease or suspected metastatic disease with the standard workup (n = 52), unclear ER status of the tumor (n = 31), and inability to determine which primary tumor caused the metastases (n = 17). The dilemmas were solved by 18F-FES PET in 87 of 100 scans (87%). In 81 of 87 scans, a treatment decision was based directly on 18F-FES PET results (treatment change, 51 scans; continuance, 30 scans). The frequency of solved dilemmas was not related to the clinical dilemma category (P = 0.334). However, the frequency of solved dilemmas was related to whether scans were 18F-FES–positive (n = 63) or 18F-FES–negative (n = 37; P < 0.001). Conclusion: For various indications, the 18F-FES PET scan can help to solve most clinical dilemmas that may remain after the standard workup. Therefore, the 18F-FES PET scan has added value in BC patients who present the physician with a clinical dilemma. |
doi_str_mv | 10.2967/jnumed.120.256826 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2528183073</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2571489327</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p613-c757843b4808c892cb83a7118b28598a040d64389f2f4f8675f3e0b8d493ceb23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdjk9LwzAchoMoOKcfwFvAi5fO_GmSX73NuqkwcLjhdaRpKhlpOpt04Le3oidPLw_vw8uL0DUlM1ZIdbcPQ2vrGWUjCwlMnqAJFVxkQkp1iiaESpoJQcQ5uohxTwiRADBB1bv2g8Vdgykss-Vig9eLLXYBbzp_dOEDl94FZ7THj87bttXxp3zorY4JlzoY2-O1Ts6GFO_xHL_Z1HfxYE1yR4s3aai_LtFZo320V385RdvlYls-Z6vXp5dyvsoOkvLMKKEg51UOBAwUzFTAtaIUKgaiAE1yUsucQ9GwJm9AKtFwSyqo84IbWzE-Rbe_s4e--xxsTLvWRWO918F2Q9wxwYACJ4qP6s0_dd8NfRjPjZaiORScKf4NATBjOA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2571489327</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Value of 18F-FES PET in Solving Clinical Dilemmas in Breast Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Study</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Boers, Jorianne ; Loudini, Naila ; Brunsch, Celina L ; Koza, Sylvia A ; de Vries, Erik FJ ; Glaudemans, Andor WJM ; Hospers, Geke AP ; Schröder, Carolina P</creator><creatorcontrib>Boers, Jorianne ; Loudini, Naila ; Brunsch, Celina L ; Koza, Sylvia A ; de Vries, Erik FJ ; Glaudemans, Andor WJM ; Hospers, Geke AP ; Schröder, Carolina P</creatorcontrib><description>Breast cancer (BC) is a heterogeneous disease in which estrogen receptor (ER) expression plays an important role in most tumors. A clinical dilemma may arise when a metastasis biopsy to determine the ER status cannot be performed safely or when ER heterogeneity is suspected between tumor lesions. Whole-body ER imaging, such as 16α-18F-fluoro-17β-estradiol (18F-FES) PET, may have added value in these situations. However, the role of this imaging technique in routine clinical practice remains to be further determined. Therefore, we assessed whether the physician's remaining clinical dilemma after the standard workup was solved by the 18F-FES PET scan. Methods: This retrospective study included 18F-FES PET scans of patients who had (or were suspected to have) ER-positive metastatic BC and for whom a clinical dilemma remained after the standard workup. The scans were performed at the University Medical Center of Groningen between November 2009 and January 2019. We investigated whether the physician's clinical dilemma was solved, defined either as solving the clinical dilemma through the 18F-FES PET results or as basing a treatment decision directly on the 18F-FES PET results. In addition, the category of the clinical dilemma was reported, as well as the rate of 18F-FES–positive or –negative PET scans, and any correlation to the frequency of solved dilemmas was determined. Results: One hundred 18F-FES PET scans were performed on 83 patients. The clinical dilemma categories were inability to determine the extent of metastatic disease or suspected metastatic disease with the standard workup (n = 52), unclear ER status of the tumor (n = 31), and inability to determine which primary tumor caused the metastases (n = 17). The dilemmas were solved by 18F-FES PET in 87 of 100 scans (87%). In 81 of 87 scans, a treatment decision was based directly on 18F-FES PET results (treatment change, 51 scans; continuance, 30 scans). The frequency of solved dilemmas was not related to the clinical dilemma category (P = 0.334). However, the frequency of solved dilemmas was related to whether scans were 18F-FES–positive (n = 63) or 18F-FES–negative (n = 37; P < 0.001). Conclusion: For various indications, the 18F-FES PET scan can help to solve most clinical dilemmas that may remain after the standard workup. Therefore, the 18F-FES PET scan has added value in BC patients who present the physician with a clinical dilemma.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0161-5505</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1535-5667</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1535-5667</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.120.256826</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Society of Nuclear Medicine</publisher><subject>17β-Estradiol ; Biopsy ; Breast cancer ; Estrogen receptors ; Estrogens ; Fluorine isotopes ; Health care facilities ; Health services ; Heterogeneity ; Imaging techniques ; Medical imaging ; Metastases ; Metastasis ; Patients ; Positron emission ; Sex hormones ; Tomography ; Tumors</subject><ispartof>The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978), 2021-09, Vol.62 (9), p.1214</ispartof><rights>Copyright Society of Nuclear Medicine Sep 1, 2021</rights><rights>2021 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27907,27908</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Boers, Jorianne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loudini, Naila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brunsch, Celina L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koza, Sylvia A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Vries, Erik FJ</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glaudemans, Andor WJM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hospers, Geke AP</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schröder, Carolina P</creatorcontrib><title>Value of 18F-FES PET in Solving Clinical Dilemmas in Breast Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Study</title><title>The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978)</title><description>Breast cancer (BC) is a heterogeneous disease in which estrogen receptor (ER) expression plays an important role in most tumors. A clinical dilemma may arise when a metastasis biopsy to determine the ER status cannot be performed safely or when ER heterogeneity is suspected between tumor lesions. Whole-body ER imaging, such as 16α-18F-fluoro-17β-estradiol (18F-FES) PET, may have added value in these situations. However, the role of this imaging technique in routine clinical practice remains to be further determined. Therefore, we assessed whether the physician's remaining clinical dilemma after the standard workup was solved by the 18F-FES PET scan. Methods: This retrospective study included 18F-FES PET scans of patients who had (or were suspected to have) ER-positive metastatic BC and for whom a clinical dilemma remained after the standard workup. The scans were performed at the University Medical Center of Groningen between November 2009 and January 2019. We investigated whether the physician's clinical dilemma was solved, defined either as solving the clinical dilemma through the 18F-FES PET results or as basing a treatment decision directly on the 18F-FES PET results. In addition, the category of the clinical dilemma was reported, as well as the rate of 18F-FES–positive or –negative PET scans, and any correlation to the frequency of solved dilemmas was determined. Results: One hundred 18F-FES PET scans were performed on 83 patients. The clinical dilemma categories were inability to determine the extent of metastatic disease or suspected metastatic disease with the standard workup (n = 52), unclear ER status of the tumor (n = 31), and inability to determine which primary tumor caused the metastases (n = 17). The dilemmas were solved by 18F-FES PET in 87 of 100 scans (87%). In 81 of 87 scans, a treatment decision was based directly on 18F-FES PET results (treatment change, 51 scans; continuance, 30 scans). The frequency of solved dilemmas was not related to the clinical dilemma category (P = 0.334). However, the frequency of solved dilemmas was related to whether scans were 18F-FES–positive (n = 63) or 18F-FES–negative (n = 37; P < 0.001). Conclusion: For various indications, the 18F-FES PET scan can help to solve most clinical dilemmas that may remain after the standard workup. Therefore, the 18F-FES PET scan has added value in BC patients who present the physician with a clinical dilemma.</description><subject>17β-Estradiol</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Estrogen receptors</subject><subject>Estrogens</subject><subject>Fluorine isotopes</subject><subject>Health care facilities</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>Heterogeneity</subject><subject>Imaging techniques</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Metastases</subject><subject>Metastasis</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Positron emission</subject><subject>Sex hormones</subject><subject>Tomography</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><issn>0161-5505</issn><issn>1535-5667</issn><issn>1535-5667</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpdjk9LwzAchoMoOKcfwFvAi5fO_GmSX73NuqkwcLjhdaRpKhlpOpt04Le3oidPLw_vw8uL0DUlM1ZIdbcPQ2vrGWUjCwlMnqAJFVxkQkp1iiaESpoJQcQ5uohxTwiRADBB1bv2g8Vdgykss-Vig9eLLXYBbzp_dOEDl94FZ7THj87bttXxp3zorY4JlzoY2-O1Ts6GFO_xHL_Z1HfxYE1yR4s3aai_LtFZo320V385RdvlYls-Z6vXp5dyvsoOkvLMKKEg51UOBAwUzFTAtaIUKgaiAE1yUsucQ9GwJm9AKtFwSyqo84IbWzE-Rbe_s4e--xxsTLvWRWO918F2Q9wxwYACJ4qP6s0_dd8NfRjPjZaiORScKf4NATBjOA</recordid><startdate>20210901</startdate><enddate>20210901</enddate><creator>Boers, Jorianne</creator><creator>Loudini, Naila</creator><creator>Brunsch, Celina L</creator><creator>Koza, Sylvia A</creator><creator>de Vries, Erik FJ</creator><creator>Glaudemans, Andor WJM</creator><creator>Hospers, Geke AP</creator><creator>Schröder, Carolina P</creator><general>Society of Nuclear Medicine</general><scope>4T-</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210901</creationdate><title>Value of 18F-FES PET in Solving Clinical Dilemmas in Breast Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Study</title><author>Boers, Jorianne ; Loudini, Naila ; Brunsch, Celina L ; Koza, Sylvia A ; de Vries, Erik FJ ; Glaudemans, Andor WJM ; Hospers, Geke AP ; Schröder, Carolina P</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p613-c757843b4808c892cb83a7118b28598a040d64389f2f4f8675f3e0b8d493ceb23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>17β-Estradiol</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Estrogen receptors</topic><topic>Estrogens</topic><topic>Fluorine isotopes</topic><topic>Health care facilities</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>Heterogeneity</topic><topic>Imaging techniques</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Metastases</topic><topic>Metastasis</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Positron emission</topic><topic>Sex hormones</topic><topic>Tomography</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Boers, Jorianne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loudini, Naila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brunsch, Celina L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koza, Sylvia A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Vries, Erik FJ</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glaudemans, Andor WJM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hospers, Geke AP</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schröder, Carolina P</creatorcontrib><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Boers, Jorianne</au><au>Loudini, Naila</au><au>Brunsch, Celina L</au><au>Koza, Sylvia A</au><au>de Vries, Erik FJ</au><au>Glaudemans, Andor WJM</au><au>Hospers, Geke AP</au><au>Schröder, Carolina P</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Value of 18F-FES PET in Solving Clinical Dilemmas in Breast Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Study</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978)</jtitle><date>2021-09-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>62</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1214</spage><pages>1214-</pages><issn>0161-5505</issn><issn>1535-5667</issn><eissn>1535-5667</eissn><abstract>Breast cancer (BC) is a heterogeneous disease in which estrogen receptor (ER) expression plays an important role in most tumors. A clinical dilemma may arise when a metastasis biopsy to determine the ER status cannot be performed safely or when ER heterogeneity is suspected between tumor lesions. Whole-body ER imaging, such as 16α-18F-fluoro-17β-estradiol (18F-FES) PET, may have added value in these situations. However, the role of this imaging technique in routine clinical practice remains to be further determined. Therefore, we assessed whether the physician's remaining clinical dilemma after the standard workup was solved by the 18F-FES PET scan. Methods: This retrospective study included 18F-FES PET scans of patients who had (or were suspected to have) ER-positive metastatic BC and for whom a clinical dilemma remained after the standard workup. The scans were performed at the University Medical Center of Groningen between November 2009 and January 2019. We investigated whether the physician's clinical dilemma was solved, defined either as solving the clinical dilemma through the 18F-FES PET results or as basing a treatment decision directly on the 18F-FES PET results. In addition, the category of the clinical dilemma was reported, as well as the rate of 18F-FES–positive or –negative PET scans, and any correlation to the frequency of solved dilemmas was determined. Results: One hundred 18F-FES PET scans were performed on 83 patients. The clinical dilemma categories were inability to determine the extent of metastatic disease or suspected metastatic disease with the standard workup (n = 52), unclear ER status of the tumor (n = 31), and inability to determine which primary tumor caused the metastases (n = 17). The dilemmas were solved by 18F-FES PET in 87 of 100 scans (87%). In 81 of 87 scans, a treatment decision was based directly on 18F-FES PET results (treatment change, 51 scans; continuance, 30 scans). The frequency of solved dilemmas was not related to the clinical dilemma category (P = 0.334). However, the frequency of solved dilemmas was related to whether scans were 18F-FES–positive (n = 63) or 18F-FES–negative (n = 37; P < 0.001). Conclusion: For various indications, the 18F-FES PET scan can help to solve most clinical dilemmas that may remain after the standard workup. Therefore, the 18F-FES PET scan has added value in BC patients who present the physician with a clinical dilemma.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Society of Nuclear Medicine</pub><doi>10.2967/jnumed.120.256826</doi></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0161-5505 |
ispartof | The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978), 2021-09, Vol.62 (9), p.1214 |
issn | 0161-5505 1535-5667 1535-5667 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2528183073 |
source | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | 17β-Estradiol Biopsy Breast cancer Estrogen receptors Estrogens Fluorine isotopes Health care facilities Health services Heterogeneity Imaging techniques Medical imaging Metastases Metastasis Patients Positron emission Sex hormones Tomography Tumors |
title | Value of 18F-FES PET in Solving Clinical Dilemmas in Breast Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Study |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T17%3A14%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Value%20of%2018F-FES%20PET%20in%20Solving%20Clinical%20Dilemmas%20in%20Breast%20Cancer%20Patients:%20A%20Retrospective%20Study&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20nuclear%20medicine%20(1978)&rft.au=Boers,%20Jorianne&rft.date=2021-09-01&rft.volume=62&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1214&rft.pages=1214-&rft.issn=0161-5505&rft.eissn=1535-5667&rft_id=info:doi/10.2967/jnumed.120.256826&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2571489327%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2571489327&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |