Value of subspecialist second opinion reads of 18F-FDG PET-CT examinations for patients with breast cancer

Objectives Determine if subspecialist second opinion review alters reporting of malignancy on 18 F-FDG PET/CT for patients with breast cancer. Methods This IRB-approved retrospective study compared 248 s opinion reads of 18 F-FDG PET/CT exams performed for patients with breast cancer against the original outside institution reports. Subspecialist reviews documented if malignant findings on the outside report were believed to be malignant and noted additional malignant findings not described on the outside report. Reference standard for malignancy or benignity was determined by pathology or follow-up imaging. Results Of 248 cases, 27 (11%) had discrepancies in the presence or absence of extra-axillary nodal or distant metastases. Of these 27, 14 (52%) had biopsy or imaging follow-up as a reference standard for malignancy/benignity. In cases with reference standard proof, the subspecialist second opinion review was correct in 13/14 (93%) of cases. This included eleven cases that the original report called malignant, but the subspecialist review called benign and subsequently proven to be benign; as well as two metastases called on subspecialist review, but not on the original report, and subsequently biopsy proven to be metastases. In one case, the second opinion read called a suspicious lesion that was biopsy proven to be benign. Conclusion Subspecialist review improves the accuracy of diagnosis for the presence or absence of malignancy on FDG PET/CT examinations in patients with breast cancer. This demonstrates the value of performing second opinion reads of 18 F-FDG PET/CT studies in patients with breast cancer, particularly by subspecialist second opinion review reducing false positive reads.