This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Torre LA, Islami F, Siegel RL, Ward EM, Jemal A. Global cancer in women: burden and trends. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017; 26: 444–57. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.Epi-16-0858TorreLAIslamiFSiegelRLWardEMJemalAGlobal cancer in women: burden and trends2017264445710.1158/1055-9965.Epi-16-0858Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Ahmed A, Glynne-Jones R, Ell PJ. Skeletal scintigraphy in carcinoma of the breast – a ten year retrospective study of 389 patients. Nucl Med Commun 1990; 11: 421–6. doi: 10.1097/00006231-199006000-00004AhmedAGlynne-JonesREllPJSkeletal scintigraphy in carcinoma of the breast – a ten year retrospective study of 389 patients199011421610.1097/00006231-199006000-00004Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Hortobagyi GN, Theriault RL, Lipton A, Porter L, Blayney D, Sinoff C, et al. Long-term prevention of skeletal complications of metastatic breast cancer with pamidronate. Protocol 19 Aredia Breast Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 2038–44. doi: 10.1200/jco.1998.16.6.2038HortobagyiGNTheriaultRLLiptonAPorterLBlayneyDSinoffCLong-term prevention of skeletal complications of metastatic breast cancer with pamidronate. Protocol 19 Aredia Breast Cancer Study Group19981620384410.1200/jco.1998.16.6.2038Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Roberts CC, Daffner RH, Weissman BN, Bancroft L, Bennett DL, Blebea JS, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria on metastatic bone disease. J Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7: 400–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2010.02.015RobertsCCDaffnerRHWeissmanBNBancroftLBennettDLBlebeaJSACR appropriateness criteria on metastatic bone disease20107400910.1016/j.jacr.2010.02.015Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Rong J, Wang S, Ding Q, Yun M, Zheng Z, Ye S. Comparison of 18 FDG PET-CT and bone scintigraphy for detection of bone metastases in breast cancer patients. A meta-analysis. Surg Oncol 2013; 22: 86–91. doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2013.01.002RongJWangSDingQYunMZhengZYeSComparison of 18 FDG PET-CT and bone scintigraphy for detection of bone metastases in breast cancer patients. A meta-analysis201322869110.1016/j.suronc.2013.01.002Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Evangelista L, Cuppari L, Burei M, Zorz A, Caumo F. Head-to-head comparison between 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI in breast cancer. Clin Transl Imaging 2019; 7: 99–104. doi: 10.1007/s40336-019-00319-2EvangelistaLCuppariLBureiMZorzACaumoFHead-to-head comparison between 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI in breast cancer201979910410.1007/s40336-019-00319-2Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Choi YJ, Shin YD, Kang YH, Lee MS, Lee MK, Cho BS, et al. The Effects of pre-operative (18)F-FDG PET/CT in breast cancer patients in comparison to the conventional imaging Study. J Breast Cancer 2012; 15: 441–8. doi: 10.4048/jbc.2012.15.4.441ChoiYJShinYDKangYHLeeMSLeeMKChoBSThe Effects of pre-operative (18)F-FDG PET/CT in breast cancer patients in comparison to the conventional imaging Study201215441810.4048/jbc.2012.15.4.441Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Evangelista L, Cervino AR, Ghiotto C, Al-Nahhas A, Rubello D, Muzzio PC. Tumor marker-guided PET in breast cancer patients-a recipe for a perfect wedding: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Clin Nucl Med 2012; 37: 467–74. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0b013e31824850b0EvangelistaLCervinoARGhiottoCAl-NahhasARubelloDMuzzioPCTumor marker-guided PET in breast cancer patients-a recipe for a perfect wedding: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis2012374677410.1097/RLU.0b013e31824850b0Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Botsikas D, Bagetakos I, Picarra M, Da Cunha Afonso Barisits AC, Boudabbous S, Montet X, et al. What is the diagnostic performance of 18-FDG-PET/MR compared to PET/CT for the N- and M-staging of breast cancer? Eur Radiol 2018; 29: 1787–98. doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5720-8BotsikasDBagetakosIPicarraMDa Cunha Afonso BarisitsACBoudabbousSMontetXWhat is the diagnostic performance of 18-FDG-PET/MR compared to PET/CT for the N- and M-staging of breast cancer?20182917879810.1007/s00330-018-5720-8Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Melsaether AN, Raad RA, Pujara AC, Ponzo FD, Pysarenko KM, Jhaveri K, et al. Comparison of whole-body (18)F FDG PET/MR imaging and whole-body (18)F FDG PET/CT in terms of lesion detection and radiation dose in patients with breast cancer. Radiology 2016; 281: 193–202. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016151155MelsaetherANRaadRAPujaraACPonzoFDPysarenkoKMJhaveriKComparison of whole-body (18)F FDG PET/MR imaging and whole-body (18)F FDG PET/CT in terms of lesion detection and radiation dose in patients with breast cancer201628119320210.1148/radiol.2016151155Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Buchbender C, Nagarajah J, Umutlu L, et al. Evaluation of 18F-FDG PET/MRI, 18F-FDG PET/CT, MRI, and CT in whole-body staging of recurrent breast cancer. Eur J Radiol 2016; 85: 459–65. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.12.010SawickiLMGrueneisenJSchaarschmidtBMBuchbenderCNagarajahJUmutluLEvaluation of 18F-FDG PET/MRI, 18F-FDG PET/CT, MRI, and CT in whole-body staging of recurrent breast cancer2016854596510.1016/j.ejrad.2015.12.010Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, McGrath TA, Bossuyt PM, Clifford T, et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. Jama 2018; 319: 388–96. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.19163McInnesMDFMoherDThombsBDMcGrathTABossuytPMCliffordTPreferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement20183193889610.1001/jama.2017.19163Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155: 529–36. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009WhitingPFRutjesAWWestwoodMEMallettSDeeksJJReitsmaJBQUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies20111555293610.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1539–58. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186HigginsJPThompsonSGQuantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis20022115395810.1002/sim.1186Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Catalano OA, Nicolai E, Rosen BR, Luongo A, Catalano M, Iannace C, et al. Comparison of CE-FDG-PET/CT with CE-FDG-PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer 2015; 112: 1452–60. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2015.112CatalanoOANicolaiERosenBRLuongoACatalanoMIannaceCComparison of CE-FDG-PET/CT with CE-FDG-PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients201511214526010.1038/bjc.2015.112Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Bruckmann NM, Kirchner J, Umutlu L, Fendler WP, Seifert R, Herrmann K, et al. Prospective comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/MRI, MRI, CT, and bone scintigraphy for the detection of bone metastases in the initial staging of primary breast cancer patients. Eur Radiol 2021; 31: 8714–24. doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-07956-0BruckmannNMKirchnerJUmutluLFendlerWPSeifertRHerrmannKProspective comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/MRI, MRI, CT, and bone scintigraphy for the detection of bone metastases in the initial staging of primary breast cancer patients20213187142410.1007/s00330-021-07956-0Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Balci TA, Koc ZP, Komek H. Bone scan or F-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography; which modality better shows bone metastases of breast cancer? Breast Care 2012; 7: 389–93. doi: 10.1159/000341559BalciTAKocZPKomekHBone scan or F-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography; which modality better shows bone metastases of breast cancer?201273899310.1159/000341559Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Hahn S, Heusner T, Kümmel S, Köninger A, Nagarajah J, Müller S, et al. Comparison of FDG-PET/CT and bone scintigraphy for detection of bone metastases in breast cancer. Acta Radiol 2011; 52: 1009–14. doi: 10.1258/ar.2011.100507HahnSHeusnerTKümmelSKöningerANagarajahJMüllerSComparison of FDG-PET/CT and bone scintigraphy for detection of bone metastases in breast cancer20115210091410.1258/ar.2011.100507Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Manohar K, Mittal BR, Senthil R, Kashyap R, Bhattacharya A, Singh G. Clinical utility of F-18 FDG PET/CT in recurrent breast carcinoma. Nucl Med Commun 2012; 33: 591–6. doi: 10.1097/MNM.0b013e3283516716ManoharKMittalBRSenthilRKashyapRBhattacharyaASinghGClinical utility of F-18 FDG PET/CT in recurrent breast carcinoma201233591610.1097/MNM.0b013e3283516716Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Demir SS, Aktas GE, Yenici FU. A Lesion based and sub-regional comparison of FDG PET/CT and MDP bone scintigraphy in detection of bone metastasis in breast cancer. Curr Med Imaging 2017; 13: 422–30. doi: 10.2174/1573405613666170126121221DemirSSAktasGEYeniciFUA Lesion based and sub-regional comparison of FDG PET/CT and MDP bone scintigraphy in detection of bone metastasis in breast cancer2017134223010.2174/1573405613666170126121221Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Niikura N, Hashimoto J, Kazama T, Koizumi J, Ogiya R, Terao M, et al. Diagnostic performance of F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT and bone scintigraphy in breast cancer patients with suspected bone metastasis. Breast Cancer 2016; 23: 662–7. doi: 10.1007/s12282-015-0621-zNiikuraNHashimotoJKazamaTKoizumiJOgiyaRTeraoMDiagnostic performance of F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT and bone scintigraphy in breast cancer patients with suspected bone metastasis201623662710.1007/s12282-015-0621-zOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar
Riegger C, Herrmann J, Nagarajah J, Hecktor J, Kuemmel S, Otterbach F, et al. Whole-body FDG PET/CT is more accurate than conventional imaging for staging primary breast cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012; 39: 852–63. doi: 10.1007/s00259-012-2077-0RieggerCHerrmannJNagarajahJHecktorJKuemmelSOtterbachFWhole-body FDG PET/CT is more accurate than conventional imaging for staging primary breast cancer patients2012398526310.1007/s00259-012-2077-0Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Rager O, Lee-Felker SA, Tabouret-Viaud C, Felker ER, Poncet A, Amzalag G, et al. Accuracy of whole-body HDP SPECT/CT, FDG PET/CT, and their combination for detecting bone metastases in breast cancer: an intra-personal comparison. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2018; 8: 159–68. PMID: 30042868RagerOLee-FelkerSATabouret-ViaudCFelkerERPoncetAAmzalagGAccuracy of whole-body HDP SPECT/CT, FDG PET/CT, and their combination for detecting bone metastases in breast cancer: an intra-personal comparison201881596830042868Search in Google Scholar
Hansen JA, Naghavi-Behzad M, Gerke O, Baun C, Falch K, Duvnjak S, et al. Diagnosis of bone metastases in breast cancer: lesion-based sensitivity of dual-timepoint FDG-PET/CT compared to low-dose CT and bone scintigraphy. PLoS ONE 2021; 16: e0260066. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260066HansenJANaghavi-BehzadMGerkeOBaunCFalchKDuvnjakSDiagnosis of bone metastases in breast cancer: lesion-based sensitivity of dual-timepoint FDG-PET/CT compared to low-dose CT and bone scintigraphy202116e026006610.1371/journal.pone.0260066Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Niikura N, Costelloe CM, Madewell JE, Hayashi N, Yu TK, Liu J, et al. FDG-PET/CT compared with conventional imaging in the detection of distant metastases of primary breast cancer. Oncologist 2011; 16: 1111–9. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0089NiikuraNCostelloeCMMadewellJEHayashiNYuTKLiuJFDG-PET/CT compared with conventional imaging in the detection of distant metastases of primary breast cancer2011161111910.1634/theoncologist.2011-0089Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Shawky M, Ali ZAE, Hashem DH, Houseni M. Role of positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in breast cancer. Egipt J Radiol Nucl Med 2020; 51: 125. doi: 10.1186/s43055-020-00244-9ShawkyMAliZAEHashemDHHouseniMRole of positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in breast cancer20205112510.1186/s43055-020-00244-9Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Teke F, Teke M, Inal A, Kaplan MA, Kucukoner M, Aksu R, et al. Significance of hormone receptor status in comparison of 18F-FDG-PET/CT and 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy for evaluating bone metastases in patients with breast cancer: single center experience. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2015; 16: 387–91. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.1.387TekeFTekeMInalAKaplanMAKucukonerMAksuRSignificance of hormone receptor status in comparison of 18F-FDG-PET/CT and 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy for evaluating bone metastases in patients with breast cancer: single center experience2015163879110.7314/apjcp.2015.16.1.387Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Zhang C, Liang Z, Liu W, Zeng X, Mo Y. Comparison of whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI for distant metastases in patients with malignant tumors: a meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 2023; 23: 37. doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-10493-8ZhangCLiangZLiuWZengXMoYComparison of whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI for distant metastases in patients with malignant tumors: a meta-analysis2023233710.1186/s12885-022-10493-8Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Wu LM, Gu HY, Zheng J, Xu X, Lin LH, Deng X, et al. Diagnostic value of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 34: 128–35. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22608WuLMGuHYZhengJXuXLinLHDengXDiagnostic value of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis2011341283510.1002/jmri.22608Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Bruckmann NM, Morawitz J, Fendler WP, Ruckhäberle E, Bittner AK, Giesel FL, et al. A role of PET/MR in breast cancer? Semin Nucl Med 2022; 52: 611–8. doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2022.01.003BruckmannNMMorawitzJFendlerWPRuckhäberleEBittnerAKGieselFLA role of PET/MR in breast cancer?202252611810.1053/j.semnuclmed.2022.01.003Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Tabouret-Viaud C, Botsikas D, Delattre BM, Mainta I, Amzalag G, Rager O, et al. PET/MR in breast cancer. Semin Nucl Med 2015; 45: 304–21. doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2015.03.003Tabouret-ViaudCBotsikasDDelattreBMMaintaIAmzalagGRagerOPET/MR in breast cancer2015453042110.1053/j.semnuclmed.2015.03.003Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Pfannenberg C, Schwenzer N. Whole-body staging of malignant melanoma: advantages, limitations and current importance of PET-CT, whole-body MRI and PET-MRI. Radiologe 2015; 55: 120–6. doi: 10.1007/s00117-014-2762-zPfannenbergCSchwenzerNWhole-body staging of malignant melanoma: advantages, limitations and current importance of PET-CT, whole-body MRI and PET-MRI201555120610.1007/s00117-014-2762-zOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar
Tunariu N, Blackledge M, Messiou C, Petralia G, Padhani A, Curcean S, et al. What's new for clinical whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) in the 21st century. Br J Radiol 2020; 93: 20200562. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20200562TunariuNBlackledgeMMessiouCPetraliaGPadhaniACurceanSWhat's new for clinical whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) in the 21st century2020932020056210.1259/bjr.20200562Open DOISearch in Google Scholar