Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: PET Clin. 2009 Jul 1;4(3):299–312. doi: 10.1016/j.cpet.2009.09.001

Table 1.

Largest series comparing the ability of whole-body FDG PET with conventional imaging to detect locoregional and distant recurrences in patients who have previously undergone primary treatment for breast cancer.

Series Number of patients Confirmed positive/negative cases FDG PET Sensitivity
(TP/TP+FN)*
FDG PET Specificity
(TN/TN+FP)*
Bender 19972 75 60/15 95% (41/43) 96% (213/221)
Moon 19983 57 29/28 93% (27/29) 79% (22/28)
Lonneux 20004 39 33/6 94% (31/33) 50% (3/6)
Kim 20015 27 17/10 94% (16/17) 80% (8/10)
Lin 20026 36 11/25 85% (23/27) 96% (85/89)
Liu 20027 30 28/2 96% (25/28) 50% (1/2)
Suarez 20028 38 26/12 92% (24/26) 75% (9/12)
Vranjesevic13 2002 61 42/19 93% (39/42) 84% (16/19)
Gallowitsch 20039 62 34/28 97% (33/34) 82% (23/28)
Siggelkow 200310 57 31/26 81% (25/31) 98% (25/26)
Kamel 200311 60 43/17 89% (24/27) LRR**
100% (26/26) DM††
84% (16/19) LRR
97% (30/31) DM
Wolfort 200615 23 16/7 81% (13/16) 100% (7/7)
Mahner 200814*** 119 71/48 87% (62/71) 83% (40/48)
*

Values calculated on patient analysis except for Bender and Lin series which are calculated on lesion analysis; TP=true positive, TN=true negative, FP=false positive, FN=false negative

Patients were mostly or all asymptomatic with elevated tumor markers.

**

LRR=Locoregional recurrence

††

DM=Distant metastases

***

50/119 patients had undergone primary treatment