4.5 Article

Clinical Significance of Incidental Finding of Focal Activity in the Breast at 18F-FDG PET/CT

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY
卷 197, 期 2, 页码 341-347

出版社

AMER ROENTGEN RAY SOC
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.6126

关键词

breast cancer; CT; FDG PET; sonography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical significance of the incidental finding of hypermetabolic foci in the breast at F-18-FDG PET/CT in patients with malignant disease other than breast cancer or during a screening examination. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The files of 13,897 women who underwent FDG PET/CT from November 2004 to October 2009 were retrospectively reviewed. Forty-eight patients with incidental breast uptake had undergone either tissue confirmation or clinical follow-up with additional sonographic imaging. The following four variables were evaluated: age, maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) of breast uptake at FDG PET, findings in the CT portion of PET/CT, and sonographic findings. Malignancy rates were calculated for each variable. RESULTS. Malignancy was diagnosed in 18 (37.5%) patients and a benign condition in 30 (62.5%) patients. Statistically significant differences in malignancy rate were found between the groups with SUVmax less than 2 (24.2%) and the group with SUVmax of 2 or greater (66.7%) and between the group with lesions in a BI-RADS ultrasound category lower than 4 (10.7%) and the group with lesions in category 4 or higher (75.0%) (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in malignancy rates between the groups younger than 45 years (11.1%) and 45 years and older (53.3%) or between the group with lesions in a BI-RADS category lower than 4 (30.2%) and that with lesions in category 4 or higher (100%) on the CT portion of PET/CT. CONCLUSION. Incidental hypermetabolic foci in the breast may represent malignancy in as many as 37.5% of cases. The SUVmax and sonographic findings can be useful for differentiating benign from malignant lesions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据