Search

Background On occasion, patients followed with positron emission tomographic (PET)/computed tomographic (CT) imaging for nonbreast malignancies will have incidental breast findings concerning for second primary breast cancers. The aim of this study was to determine the predictive value of PET/CT imaging to identify breast cancers in these patients. Methods Patients with primary nonbreast malignancies and findings concerning for second primary breast cancers were identified from a prospectively acquired nuclear medicine database from January 2005 to July 2008. Chart reviews were then performed. Results Nine hundred two women underwent PET/CT imaging to evaluate nonbreast malignancies. Nine women (1%) had concerning breast findings, and 5 (56%) had subsequent breast cancer diagnoses. The positive predictive value of PET/CT imaging in these patients was 63%. Evidence of compliance with current screening guidelines was present in only 22% of these patients. Conclusions The data suggest that findings concerning for an additional primary breast cancer should be evaluated and that age-appropriate screening tools should not be abandoned.

Background Despite a paucity of evidence-based guidelines, the use of PET/CT (positron emission tomography/computed tomography) in the management of cancer patients is increasing. As widespread clinical application increases, unexpected radiographic findings are occasionally identified. These incidental findings are often suspicious for a second primary malignancy. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical impact of these incidental PET/CT findings. Methods A query of our prospectively acquired Nuclear Medicine database was performed to identify patients with a known malignancy being staged or serially imaged with PET/CT. Patients with incidental findings suggestive of a second primary malignancy were selected. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the ability of PET/CT to identify a second primary malignancy. All PET/CT were interpreted by board certified nuclear radiologists. Results Of 3,814 PET/CT scans performed on 2,219 cancer patients at our institution from January 1, 2005, to December 29, 2008, 272 patients (12% of all patients) had findings concerning for a second primary malignancy. An invasive work-up was performed on 49% (133/272) of these patients, while 15% (40/272) had no further evaluation due to an advanced primary malignancy. The remaining 36% (99/272) had no further evaluation secondary to a low clinical suspicion determined by the treating team, a clinical plan of observation, or patients lost to follow-up. Of the 133 patients evaluated further, clinicians identified a second primary malignancy in 41 patients (31%), benign disease in 62 patients (47%), and metastatic disease from their known malignancy in 30 patients (23%). The most common sites for a proven second primary malignancy were: lung (N = 10), breast (N = 7), and colon (N = 5). Investigation of these lesions was performed using several techniques, including 24 endoscopies (6 malignant). A surgical procedure was performed in 74 patients (29 malignant), and a percutaneous biopsy was performed on 34 patients (12 malignant). The overall positive predictive value for PET/CT to detect a second primary malignancy was 31% in this subgroup. At a median follow-up of 22 months, 9 of 41 patients with a second primary were dead of a malignancy, 20 were alive with disease, and 12 had no evidence of disease. Conclusion Incidental PET/CT findings consistent with a second primary are occasionally encountered in cancer patients. In our data, approximately half of these findings were benign, a third were consistent with a second primary malignancy or a metastatic focus, and the remainder were never evaluated due to physician and patient decision. Advanced primary tumors are unlikely to be impacted by a second primary tumor suggesting that this subset of patients will not benefit from further investigation. Our data suggests that, despite the high rate of false positivity, incidental PET/CT findings should be investigated when the results will impact treatment algorithms. The timing and route of investigation should be dictated by clinical judgment and the status of the primary tumor. Further investigation will need to be performed to determine the long-term clinical impact of incidentally identified second primary malignancies.

The influence of preoperative hemoglobin levels on outcomes of patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer is not clearly defined. The goal of this article was to explore the association between combined modality therapy, preoperative anemia status, and perioperative blood transfusion and risk of postoperative complications among patients undergoing esophageal resection.From a retrospective esophageal database, 413 patients were identified. Anemia was defined according to the World Health Organization classification of13 g/dL or12 g/dL for men or women, respectively. Statistical analysis was performed with analysis of variance, Pearson's chi(2), or Fisher exact test as appropriate. The independent association of anemia, blood transfusion, and combined modality treatment on risk of postoperative complications were examined using multiple logistic regression.Information on combined modality treatment, preoperative hemoglobin levels, and blood transfusion was available for 413 patients, of whom 57% received combined modality treatment. Overall 197 (47.6%) patients were preoperatively found to be anemic, and those who had received combined modality treatment were more likely to be anemic (60.6% versus 30.7%, P0.001). Anemic patients required more blood transfusions than nonanemic patients (46.7% versus 29.6%, P0.001). Seventy-five percent of patients who required transfusion during the hospital stay had received combined modality treatment (P = 0.01). Combined modality treatment and anemia were not associated with increased risk of complications. Patients with any perioperative complication and surgical site infections were more likely to have received blood transfusion compared to patients without complications (OR = 1.73; 95% CI 1.04-2.87 and OR = 2.98; 95% CI 1.04-8.55; respectively).Overall, we determined that administration of neoadjuvant treatment to esophageal cancer patients was not associated with an increased rate of perioperative complications. Preoperative anemia did not predict worsened short-term outcomes, but increased the chances of red blood cell transfusion, which were significantly associated with higher overall complications and increased risk of surgical site infections. These data confirm previous studies that allogenic red blood cell transfusions are independent risk factors for increased morbidity and mortality and should be minimized during surgery for esophageal cancer.