Top

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Published in:

01-06-2004

Breast scintigraphy today: indications and limitations

Authors: Orazio Schillaci, John R. Buscombe

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Special Issue 1/2004

Abstract

Breast carcinoma is the most common neoplasm found among women in the Western world. Mammography (MM) is the most widely used diagnostic imaging method for screening and diagnosing breast cancer. However, despite technical improvements in recent years, MM has known diagnostic limits; consequently not all breast carcinomas are identified on mammograms, especially if the breast is dense, there is a breast prosthesis or the patient has previously undergone radiation, surgery or biopsy. In addition, the mammographic images of benign and malignant lesions can be similar. Therefore, abnormalities detected on MM frequently result in negative biopsies. Scintimammography (SM) is the functional imaging study of the breast using primarily the radiopharmaceuticals ^99mTc-sestamibi and ^99mTc-tetrofosmin. The main advantage of SM is that its functional basis makes this technique a useful complement to MM. SM resolves some of the main limitations of MM as it is not affected by changes in breast morphology. Several single-site and multi-centre studies have demonstrated that SM has an improved specificity compared with MM, because it is better able to distinguish malignant from benign breast lesions. Interestingly, except in smaller lesions, a higher sensitivity has been recorded for SM than for MM in most of these studies as well. Adjunctive use of SM when MM is equivocal can reduce the number of unnecessary breast biopsies and identify previously unexpected sites of breast cancer. SM appears unaffected by the anatomical changes seen following chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and so this technique can be particularly useful in monitoring the treatment of breast cancer patients, especially when breast-conserving treatment is given. The main limitation to SM has been the sub-optimal resolution of the standard Anger gamma camera, which makes it difficult to detect lesions of less than 10 mm; however, the development of high-resolution breast-dedicated gamma cameras may offer improvements in this respect. This review will look at the evidence for SM and show how it can become part of the clinical care algorithm in breast cancer.

Jemal A, Tiwari RC, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics, 2004. CA Cancer J Clin 2004; 54:8–29.PubMed

Daniel B. Kopans DB. Mammography screening is saving thousands of lives, but will it survive medical malpractice? Radiology 2004; 230:20–24.PubMed

Tabar LK, Vitak B, Chen HHT, Yen MF, Duffy SW, Smith RA. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast cancer mortality. Cancer 2001; 91:1724–1731.PubMed

Berlin L. The missed breast cancer redux: time for educating the public about the limitations of mammography? AJR 2001; 176:1131–1134.

Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, O’Shaughnessy KF, Sickles EA. Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection. Radiology 2001; 219:192–202.PubMed

Holland R, Jan HC, Hendricks L, Mravunac M. Mammographically occult breast cancers: a pathological and radiologic study. Cancer 1983; 52:1810–1819.

Kopans D. The positive predictive value of mammography. AJR 1992; 158:521–526.

Monusturi Z, Herman PG, Carmody DP, et al. Limitations in distinguishing malignant from benign lesions of the breast by systematic review of mammograms. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1991; 173:438–442.PubMed

Adler DD, Wahl RL. New methods for imaging the breast: techniques, findings and potential. AJR 1995; 164:19–30.

10.

Jackson VP. The role of US in breast imaging. Radiology 1990; 177:305–311.PubMed

11.

Kopans DB. Sonography should not be used for breast cancer screening until its efficacy has been proven scientifically. AJR 2004; 182:489–491.

12.

Buscombe JR, Cwikla JB, Thakrar DS, Hilson AJ. Scintigraphic imaging of breast cancer: a review. Nucl Med Commun 1997; 18:698–709.PubMed

13.

Schillaci O, Scopinaro F. Tc-99m sestamibi scintimammography: where is it now? Cancer Biother Radiopharm 1999; 14:417–422.PubMed

14.

Schomacker K, Schicha H. Use of myocardial imaging agents for tumour diagnosis—a success story? Eur J Nucl Med 2000; 27:1845–1863.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Carvalho PA, Chiu ML, Kronauge JF, et al. Subcellular distribution and analysis of Tc-99m MIBI in isolated perfused rat hearts. J Nucl Med 1992; 33:1516–1521.PubMed

16.

Delmon-Mongeon LI, Piwinica-Worms D, Van der Abbeele AD, et al. Uptake of the cation hexakis (2-methoxyisobutylisonitrile)-technetium-99m by human carcinoma cell lines in vitro. Cancer Res 1990; 50:2198–2202.PubMed

17.

Maublant J, Zhang Z, Rapp M, et al. In vitro uptake of technetium-99m-teboroxime in carcinoma cell lines and normal cells: comparison with technetium-99m-sestamibi and thallium-201. J Nucl Med 1993; 34:1949–1952.PubMed

18.

Scopinaro F, Schillaci O, Scarpini M, et al. Technetium-99m sestamibi: an indicator of breast cancer invasiveness. Eur J Nucl Med 1994; 21:984–987.PubMed

19.

Pwnica-Worms D, Chiu ML, Budding M, et al. Functional imaging of multidrug-resistant P-glycoprotein with an organotechnetium complex. Cancer Res 1993; 53:977–984.PubMed

20.

Arbab AS, Koizumi K, Toyama K, Araki T. Uptake of technetium-99m-tetrofosmin, technetium-99m-MIBI and thallium-201 in tumor cell lines. J Nucl Med 1996; 37:1551–1556.PubMed

21.

Ballinger JR.^99mTc-tetrofosmin for functional imaging of P-glycoprotein modulation in vivo. J Clin Pharmacol 2001; Suppl: 39S–47S.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Van de Wiele C, Rottey S, Goethals I, et al.^99mTc sestamibi and ^99mTc tetrofosmin scintigraphy for predicting resistance to chemotherapy: a critical review of clinical data. Nucl Med Commun 2003; 24:945–950.PubMed

23.

Khalkhali I, Mena I, Jouanne E, et al. Prone scintimammography in patients with suspicion of carcinoma of the breast. J Am Coll Surg 1994; 178:491–497.PubMed

24.

Liberman M, Sampalis F, Mulder DS, Sampalis JS. Breast cancer diagnosis by scintimammography: a meta-analysis and review of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2003; 80:115–126.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Sampalis FS, Denis R, Picard D, et al. International prospective evaluation of scintimammography with (99m)technetium sestamibi. Am J Surg 2003; 185:544–549.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Buscombe JR, Cwikla JB, Holloway B, Hilson AJ. Prediction of the usefulness of combined mammography and scintimammography in suspected primary breast cancer using ROC curves. J Nucl Med 2001; 42:3-8.PubMed

27.

Scopinaro F, Schillaci O, Ussof W, et al. A three center study on the diagnostic accuracy of^99mTc-MIBI scintimammography. Anticancer Res 1997; 17:1631–1634.PubMed

28.

Waxman A, Nagaraj N, Kovalevsky M, et al. Detection of primary breast malignancy with Tc-99m methoxyisobutylisonitrile in patients with non-palpable primary malignancies: the importance of lesion size [abstract]. J Nucl Med 1995; 36:194P.

29.

Mekhmandarov S, Sandbank J, Coehn M, Lelcuk S, Lubin E. Technetium-99m-MIBI scintimammography in palpable and nonpalpable breast lesions. J Nucl Med 1998; 39:86–91.PubMed

30.

Tolmos J, Cutrone JA, Wang B, et al. Scintimammographic analysis of nonpalpable breast lesions previously identified by conventional mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90:846–849.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Khalkhali I, Villanueva-Meyer J, Edell SL, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of^99mTc-sestamibi breast imaging: multicenter trial results. J Nucl Med 2000; 41:1973–1979.PubMed

32.

Buscombe JR, Cwikla JB, Thakrar DS, Hilson AJ. Uptake of Tc-99m MIBI related to tumour size and type. Anticancer Res 1997; 17:1693–1694.PubMed

33.

Obwegeser R, Berghammer P, Rodrigues M, et al. A head-to-head comparison between technetium-99m-tetrofosmin and technetium-99m-MIBI scintigraphy to evaluate suspicious breast lesions. Eur J Nucl Med 1999; 26:1553–1559.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Cwikla JB, Buscombe JR, Hilson AJ. Detection of DCIS using^99mTc-MIBI scintimammography in patients with suspected primary breast cancer, comparison with conventional mammography. Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur 2000; 3:41–45.PubMed

35.

Schillaci O, Scopinaro F, Danieli R, et al.⁹⁹Tc^m-sestamibi scintimammography in patients with suspicious breast lesions: comparison of SPET and planar images in the detection of primary tumours and axillary lymph node involvement. Nucl Med Commun 1997; 18:839–845.PubMed

36.

Tiling R, Tatsch K, Sommer H, et al. Technetium-99m-sestamibi scintimammography for the detection of breast carcinoma: comparison between planar and SPECT imaging. J Nucl Med 1998; 39:849–856.PubMed

37.

Buscombe JR, Cwikla JB, Thakrar DS, Parbhoo SP, Hilson AJ. Prone SPET scintimammography. Nucl Med Commun 1999; 20:237–245.PubMed

38.

Waxman AD. The role of^99mTc methoxyisobutylisonitrile in imaging breast cancer. Semin Nucl Med 1997; 27:40–54.PubMed

39.

Spanu A, Schillaci O, Meloni GB, et al. The usefulness of^99mTc-tetrofosmin SPECT scintimammography in the detection of small size primary breast carcinomas. Int J Oncol 2002; 21:831–840.PubMed

40.

Garin E, Devillers A, Girault S, et al. Scintimammography: better detection of small-sized lesions with tomoscintigraphic than planar images, a phantom study. Nucl Med Commun 2001; 22:1045–1054.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Mankoff DA, Dunnwald LK, Kinahan P. Are we ready for dedicated breast imaging approaches? J Nucl Med 2003; 44:594–595.PubMed

42.

Brem RF, Schoonjans JM, Kieper DA, Majewski S, Goodman S, Civelek C. High-resolution scintimammography: a pilot study. J Nucl Med 2002; 43:909–915.PubMed

43.

Gupta P, Waxman A, Nguyen K, et al. Correlation of Tc-99m sestamibi uptake with histopathologic characteristics in patients with breast diseases [abstract]. J Nucl Med 1996; 37:250P.

44.

Khalkhali I, Vargas HI. The role of nuclear medicine in breast cancer detection: functional breast imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 2001; 39:1053–1068.PubMed

45.

Horne T, Pappo I, Cohenpour M, Mindlin L, Orda R.⁹⁹Tc^m-MIBI scintimammography for the detection of breast malignancies: the contribution of the count ratio to specificity. Nucl Med Commun 1999; 20:511–516.PubMed

46.

Buscombe JR, Kolasinska AD Cwikla JB Hilson,A.J.W. Does combining scintimammography and mammography in the primary breast cancers than mammography alone in the under-and over 50s? [abstract]. J Nucl Med 2002; 43:75P.

47.

Prats E, Aisa F, Abos MD, et al. Mammography and 99mTc-MIBI scintimammography in suspected breast cancer. J Nucl Med 1999; 40:296–301.

48.

Polan RL, Klein BD, Richman RH. Scintimammography in patients with minimal mammographic or clinical findings. Radiographics 2001; 21:641–653.PubMed

49.

American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS), 2nd edn. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 1995.

50.

Thurfjell E. Breast density and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:866.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Schillaci O, Scopinaro F, Danieli R, et al. Scintimammography with technetium-99m tetrofosmin in suspected breast cancer. Anticancer Res 1997; 17:1623–1626.PubMed

52.

Schillaci O, Di Luzio E, Porfiri LM, et al. Role of Tc-99m sestamibi scintimammography in patients with indeterminate mammography due to dense breasts [abstract]. Eur J Nucl Med 1999; 26:986.CrossRef

53.

Cutrone JA, Khalkhali I, Yospur LS, et al. Tc-99m sestamibi scintimammography for the evaluation of breast masses in patients with radiographically dense breasts. Breast J 1999; 5:383–388.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Khalkhali I, Baum JK, Villanueva-Meyer J, et al.^99mTc sestamibi breast imaging for the examination of patients with dense and fatty breasts: multicenter study. Radiology 2002; 222:149–155.PubMed

55.

Tiling R, Khalkhali I, Sommer H, et al. Role of technetium-99m sestamibi scintimammography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the evaluation of indeterminate mammograms. Eur J Nucl Med 1997; 24:1221–1229.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Orel SG, Schnall MD. MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology 2001; 220:13–30.PubMed

57.

McMahon KE, Osborne DR, Davidson AL. Role of breast magnetic resonance imaging in difficult diagnostic situations. Med J Aust 2001; 175:494–497.PubMed

58.

Marini C, Cilotti A, Traino AC, et al. Tc 99m-sestamibi scintimammography in the differentiation of benign and malignant breast microcalcifications. Breast 2001; 10:306–312.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Cwikla JB, Buscombe JR, Holloway B, et al. Can scintimammography with^99mTc-MIBI identify multifocal and multicentric primary breast cancer? Nucl Med Commun 2001; 22:1287–1293.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Vargas HI, Agbunag RV, Kalinowski A, et al. The clinical utility of Tc-99m sestamibi scintimammography in detecting multicentric breast cancer. Am Surg 2001; 67:1204–1208.PubMed

61.

Tillman GF, Orel SG, Schnall MD, Schultz DJ, Tan JE, Solin LJ. Effect of breast magnetic resonance imaging on the clinical management of women with early-stage breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20:3413–3423.CrossRefPubMed

62.

Cwikla JB, Kolasinska A, Buscombe JR, Hilson AJ. Tc-99m MIBI in suspected recurrent breast cancer. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2000; 15:367–372.PubMed

63.

Yildiz A, Garipagaoglu M, Gungor F, Boz A, Dalmaz G. The role of technetium-99m methoxyisobutyl isonitrile scintigraphy in suspected recurrent breast cancer. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2001; 16:163–169.CrossRefPubMed

64.

Spanu A, Farris A, Schillaci O, et al. The usefulness of^99mTc tetrofosmin scintigraphy in patients with breast cancer recurrences. Nucl Med Commun 2003; 24:145–154.CrossRefPubMed

65.

Cwikla JB,Buscombe JR,Barlow RV, et al. The effect of chemotherapy on the uptake of technetium-99m sestamibi in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 1997; 24:1175–1178.CrossRefPubMed

66.

Takamura Y, Miyoshi Y, Taguchi T, Noguchi S. Prediction of chemotherapeutic response by technetium 99m-MIBI scintigraphy in breast carcinoma patients. Cancer 2001; 92:232–239.CrossRefPubMed

67.

Maini CL, Tofani A, Sciuto R, et al. Technetium-99m-MIBI scintigraphy in the assessment of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast carcinoma. J Nucl Med 1997; 38:1546–1551.PubMed

68.

Mankoff DA, Dunnwald LK, Gralow JR, Ellis GK, Drucker MJ, Livingston RB. Monitoring the response of patients with locally advanced breast carcinoma to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using [technetium 99m]-sestamibi scintimammography. Cancer 1999; 85:2410–2423.CrossRefPubMed

69.

Mezi S, Primi F, Capoccetti F, Scopinaro F, Modesti M, Schillaci O. In vivo detection of resistance to anthracycline based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced and inflammatory breast cancer with technetium-99m sestamibi scintimammography. Int J Oncol 2003; 22:1233–1240.PubMed

70.

Allen MW, Hendi P, Schwimmer J, Basset L, Gambhir SS. Decision analysis for the cost-effectiveness of sestamibi scintimammography in minimizing unnecessary biopsies. Q J Nucl Med 2000; 44:168–185.PubMed

71.

Luce BR, Simpson K. Methods of cost-effectiveness analysis: areas of consensus and debate. Clin Ther 1995; 17:109–125.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Breast scintigraphy today: indications and limitations
Authors: Orazio Schillaci
John R. Buscombe
Publication date: 01-06-2004
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue Special Issue 1/2004
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-004-1525-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Breast scintigraphy today: indications and limitations

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Special Issue 1/2004

Current role of bone scan with phosphonates in the follow-up of breast cancer

186Re-HEDP for metastatic bone pain in breast cancer patients

Sentinel node detection in pre-operative axillary staging

Breast cancer: diagnostic and therapeutic options

PET/CT and breast cancer

Advantages and limitations of FDG PET in the follow-up of breast cancer