PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Duska Vranjesevic AU - Jean Emmanuel Filmont AU - Joubin Meta AU - Daniel H. Silverman AU - Michael E. Phelps AU - Jyotsna Rao AU - Peter E. Valk AU - Johannes Czernin TI - Whole-Body <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET and Conventional Imaging for Predicting Outcome in Previously Treated Breast Cancer Patients DP - 2002 Mar 01 TA - Journal of Nuclear Medicine PG - 325--329 VI - 43 IP - 3 4099 - http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/43/3/325.short 4100 - http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/43/3/325.full SO - J Nucl Med2002 Mar 01; 43 AB - This study was conducted to determine the ability of 18F-FDG PET and conventional imaging (CI) to predict the outcomes in breast cancer patients who have previously undergone primary treatment. Methods: The study population consisted of 61 female patients (median age, 54 y; range, 32–91 y) who were reevaluated with 18F-FDG PET and CI after treatment. The median interval between the last treatment and PET was 0.4 y (range, 0–16 y). PET was performed within 3 mo of CI (median interval, 25 d; range, 2–84 d). To determine the independent impact of PET on outcome, PET images were reinterpreted in a blind fashion. Availability of clinical information after PET scanning (21 ± 12 mo) was required for study inclusion. Study endpoints were clinical evidence of progression of disease or death. Results: Of 61 patients, 19 (31.1%) had no clinical evidence and 38 (62.3%) had evidence of residual or recurrent disease by the end of follow-up. Four patients (6.6%) had died. The positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively) of PET were 93% and 84%, respectively. CI yielded a PPV of 85% and an NPV of 59%. The prognostic accuracy of single whole-body PET was superior to that of multiple procedures with CI (90% vs. 75%; P &lt; 0.05). Kaplan–Meier estimates of disease-free survival in patients with negative PET findings compared with those with positive PET findings revealed a significant difference between the 2 curves (log-rank test = 0.001). Kaplan–Meier estimates of disease-free survival stratified by CI results showed a marginally significant difference between CI-positive and CI-negative patients (log-rank test = 0.04). Conclusion: FDG PET can be used to improve prediction of the clinical outcome of previously treated breast cancer patients relative to what is achievable through CI alone.