Head-to-Head comparison of [18F]FES and [18F]FDG PET/CT in breast cancer patients: has a new era come?
- PMID: 40067459
- DOI: 10.1007/s00259-025-07186-2
Head-to-Head comparison of [18F]FES and [18F]FDG PET/CT in breast cancer patients: has a new era come?
Abstract
Purpose: This review systematically compared, in a head-to-head manner, the diagnostic and prognostic performance of [18F]FDG and [18F]FES PET/CT in breast cancer (BC) patients.
Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to January 2025, without temporal limitations or restrictions on the number of patients in the included studies, to identify relevant articles comparing the diagnostic value of [18F]FDG and [18F]FES PET in BC patients. Selected imaging studies were analyzed using a modified version of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist dedicated to systematic reviews.
Results: A total of 20 papers were evaluated. Based on the CASP analysis, the quality of the study was variable. Totally, 806 patients affected by BC underwent both [18F]FDG and [18F]FES PET. Different setting of disease were considered, such as staging/diagnostic and prognostic value. In the initial staging of disease, [18F]FES PET/CT seemed to be more accurate than [18F]FDG. In the prognostic field, [18F]FES expression was a positive factor for the better prognosis, in particular when the amount of [18F]FDG uptake was low. [18F]FES seemed to be promising as a molecular agent in patients affected by invasive lobular BC.
Conclusion: These findings underscore the potential of [18F]FES as a complementary imaging biomarker to [18F]FDG, advocating for further studies to standardize PET metrics and refine their combined clinical utility.
Keywords: Breast cancer; FDG; FES; PET/CT; Prognosis.
© 2025. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Ethics approval: This is a literature review and therefore no ethical approval is required. Competing interests: The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Clinical trial number: Not applicable. Human ethics and consent to participate: Not applicable.
References
-
- World Health Organization. Breast Cancer.
-
- Groheux D. Breast cancer systemic staging (Comparison of computed tomography, bone scan, and 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose PET/Computed Tomography). PET Clin. 2023;18:503–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpet.2023.04.006 . - DOI - PubMed
-
- Croshaw R, Shapiro-Wright H, Svensson E, Erb K, Julian T. Accuracy of clinical examination, digital mammogram, ultrasound, and MRI in determining postneoadjuvant pathologic tumor response in operable breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3160–3. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1919-5 . - DOI - PubMed
-
- Ulaner GA, Vaz SC. Women’s health update: growing role of PET for patients with breast cancer. Semin Nucl Med. 2024;54:247–55. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2024.01.007 . - DOI - PubMed
-
- Groheux D. FDG-PET/CT for primary staging and detection of recurrence of breast cancer. Semin Nucl Med. 2022;52:508–19. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2022.05.001 . - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous