Positron emission mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Is maximum PEM uptake value a valuable threshold for malignant breast cancer detection?

AIM To evaluate the diagnostic value (sensitivity, specificity) of positron emission mammography (PEM) in a single site non-interventional study using the maximum PEM uptake value (PUVmax). PATIENTS, METHODS In a singlesite, non-interventional study, 108 patients (107 women, 1 man) with a total of 151 suspected lesions were scanned with a PEM Flex Solo II (Naviscan) at 90 min p.i. with 3.5 MBq 18F-FDG per kg of body weight. In this ROI(region of interest)-based analysis, maximum PEM uptake value (PUV) was determined in lesions, tumours (PUVmaxtumour), benign lesions (PUVmaxnormal breast) and also in healthy tissues on the contralateral side (PUVmaxcontralateral breast). These values were compared and contrasted. In addition, the ratios of PUVmaxtumour / PUVmaxcontralateral breast and PUVmaxnormal breast / PUVmaxcontralateral breast were compared. The image data were interpreted independently by two experienced nuclear medicine physicians and compared with histology in cases of suspected carcinoma. RESULTS Based on a criteria of PUV>1.9, 31 out of 151 lesions in the patient cohort were found to be malignant (21%). A mean PUVmaxtumour of 3.78 ± 2.47 was identified in malignant tumours, while a mean PUVmaxnormal breast of 1.17 ± 0.37 was reported in the glandular tissue of the healthy breast, with the difference being statistically significant (p < 0.001). Similarly, the mean ratio between tumour and healthy glandular tissue in breast cancer patients (3.15 ± 1.58) was found to be significantly higher than the ratio for benign lesions (1.17 ± 0.41, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION PEM is capable of differentiating breast tumours from benign lesions with 100% sensitivity along with a high specificity of 96%, when a threshold of PUVmax >1.9 is applied.

Loss of appetite in acutely ill medical inpatients: physiological response or therapeutic target?

Loss of appetite and ensuing weight loss is a key feature of severe illnesses. Protein-energy malnutrition (PEM) contributes significantly to the adverse outcome of these conditions. Pharmacological interventions to target appetite stimulation have little efficacy but considerable side effects. Therefore nutritional therapy appears to be the logical step to combat inadequate nutrition. However, clinical trial data demonstrating benefits are sparse and there is no current established standard algorithm for use of nutritional support in malnourished, acutely ill medical inpatients. Recent high-quality evidence from critical care demonstrating harmful effects when parenteral nutritional support is used indiscriminately has led to speculation that loss of appetite in the acute phase of illness is indeed an adaptive, protective response that improves cell recycling (autophagy) and detoxification. Outside critical care, there is an important gap in high quality clinical trial data shedding further light on these important issues. The selection, timing, and doses of nutrition should be evaluated as carefully as with any other therapeutic intervention, with the aim of maximising efficacy and minimising adverse effects and costs. In light of the current controversy, a reappraisal of how nutritional support should be used in acutely ill medical inpatients outside critical care is urgently required. The aim of this review is to discuss current pathophysiological concepts of PEM and to review the current evidence for the efficacy of nutritional support regarding patient outcomes when used in an acutely ill medical patient population outside critical care.

Detection of Malnutrition in Patients Undergoing Maintenance Haemodialysis: A Quantitative Data Analysis on 12 Parameters

Background Protein-energy-malnutrition (PEM) is common in people with end stage kidney disease (ESKD) undergoing maintenance haemodialysis (MHD) and correlates strongly with mortality. To this day, there is no gold standard for detecting PEM in patients on MHD. Aim of Study The aim of this study was to evaluate if Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), handgrip strength measurement, mid-upper arm muscle area (MUAMA), triceps skin fold measurement (TSF), serum albumin, normalised protein catabolic rate (nPCR), Kt/V and eKt/V, dry body weight, body mass index (BMI), age and time since start on MHD are relevant for assessing PEM in patients on MHD. Methods The predictive value of the selected parameters on mortality and mortality or weight loss of more than 5% was assessed. Quantitative data analysis of the 12 parameters in the same patients on MHD in autumn 2009 (n = 64) and spring 2011 (n = 40) with paired statistical analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed. Results Paired data analysis showed significant reduction of dry body weight, BMI and nPCR. Kt/Vtot did not change, eKt/v and hand grip strength measurements were significantly higher in spring 2011. No changes were detected in TSF, serum albumin, NRS-2002 and MUAMA. Serum albumin was shown to be the only predictor of death and of the combined endpoint “death or weight loss of more than 5%”. Conclusion We now screen patients biannually for serum albumin, nPCR, Kt/V, handgrip measurement of the shunt-free arm, dry body weight, age and time since initiation of MHD.