['While it is well-known that there is 18F-FDG uptake in breast tumors, clinical impact of (18)F-FDG PET in managing breast cancer patients is not well-studied.', 'One hundred and thirty-three consecutive breast cancer patients from May 1996 to June 2000 were studied. All patients were treated and being followed. Reasons of referral included equivocal conventional studies, staging/re-staging, clinical suspicion of recurrence, and elevated serum tumor markers. Clinical status at 6 months postPET is used as the gold standard in lesions of worsening versus stable or improving.', 'PET was 69% sensitive and 80% specific in predicting clinical stage at 6 months. This 69% of the patients who got worse at 6 months was PET positive and 80% of the patients who were stable or improving at 6 months were PET negative. There was a significant association between PET results and clinical outcome, after adjusting for stage of disease (P=0.04), or for the treatment patients received (P<0.01). Negative PET results changed therapy as often as positive ones did. PET influenced treatment decisions in 74% of the patients referred for study.'] Does a retrospective analysis of the impact of 18F-FDG PET scan on clinical management of 133 breast cancer patients?