Table 2.

Largest series comparing the ability of PET/CT with FDG-PET alone or 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	PET/CT Sensitivity (TP/TP+FN)*	PET/CT Specificity (TN/TN+FP)*	Comparison imaging
Grahek 200465†	75	57/18	84%	78%	Physical exam, CI**
Fueger 200526	58	33/25	94%	84%	PET alone
Tatsumi 200623	69	58/11	84%	88%	NCCT***
Radan 200666	46	30/16	90%	71%	CECT
Haug 200724††	34	26/8	96%	89%	CECT, PET
Veit-Haibach 200725	44	19/25	Correct staging: 91% (n=40)	Overstaged: 9% (n=4)	CECT, PET, and PET+CECT
Piperkova 200767	34 (restaging) lesions, n=257	15/19	98%	94%	CECT
Dirisamer 200927	52 lesions, n=150	42/10	93%	100%	CECT, PET

^*Values calculated on patient analysis except for Piperkova and Dirisamer series which are calculated on lesion analysis; TP=true positive, TN=true negative, FP=false positive, FN=false negative

^**CI=conventional imaging

^***NCCT=noncontrast CT

^§CECT=contrast enhanced CT

^†PET gamma camera used

^††fusion software used; all patients were asymptomatic with elevated tumor markers