Table 2.
Review of PET-CT in Assessment of Women with a History of Breast Cancer and Suspected Recurrence
| Lead Author | Year | # Pt | Sens | Spec | Accuracy | % Change Mgmt |
Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Champion72 | 2011 | 228 | 94% | 85% | 92% | 54% | Conventional WU |
| Evangelista68 | 2011 | 111 | 81% | 52% | 60% | 56% | Conventional WU |
| Grassetto 73 | 2010 | 89 | NR | NR | NR | 45% | Conventional WU |
| Fueger 74 | 2005 | 58 | 94% | 84% | 90% | NR | PET |
| Aukema 75 | 2010 | 56 | 97% | 92% | 95% | 48% | Conventional WU |
| Dirisamer 76 | 2009 | 52 | 93% | 100% | NR | NR | CECT |
| Filippi 77 | 2011 | 46 | 87% | 88% | 87% | 50% | |
| Radan 78 | 2006 | 46 | 90% | 71% | 80% | 51% | CECT |
| Haug 79 | 2007 | 34 | 96% | 89% | NR | NR | CECT |
| Schmidt 80 | 2008 | 33 | 91% | 90% | NR | NR | WB MRI |
WU = work up, CECT = contrast enhanced CT, WB = whole body