Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: To compare the performance of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (F-FDG) PET/computed tomography (CT) and conventional tests for cancer screening in autoimmune inflammatory myopathy (AIM) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We carried out a retrospective cohort study of AIM patients from one academic center in Montreal, Canada, classified using myositis-specific antibodies, who underwent F-FDG PET/CT between April 2005 and February 2018 and were followed up on average 3.5±2.4 years. Patients were excluded if follow-up was insufficient, AIM diagnosis was indeterminate, and/or malignancy was diagnosed before an F-FDG PET/CT scan. Demographic/clinical data, F-FDG PET/CT results, and available conventional screening tests results were retrieved from electronic and paper medical records. RESULTS: 100 F-FDG PET/CT studies in 63 unique patients [31/63 dermatomyositis (DM), 25/63 overlap myositis, 1/63 inclusion body myositis, 1/63 polymyositis, 1/63 orbital myositis and 4/63 unspecified myositis] were evaluated. Three patients, all classified as DM, were diagnosed with cancer during follow-up with conventional cancer screening tests: breast cancer detected by mammography; squamous cell carcinoma of the skin detected by physical examination; and multiple myeloma detected by blood work. F-FDG PET/CT did not detect any malignancy and led to more additional biopsies than conventional screening (8 vs. 5). CONCLUSION: F-FDG PET/CT does not appear to be useful in cancer screening for AIM patients compared with conventional screening and carries potential harms associated with follow-up investigations. The risk of cancer in AIM differs by myositis-specific antibodies-defined subsets and cancer screening is likely to be indicated only in high-risk patients, particularly DM. These results, replicated in larger, multicentered studies, may carry significant consequences for optimal management of AIM and health resource utilization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maliha et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: