Top

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Published in:

01-02-2014 | Original Article

Breast cancer detection using high-resolution breast PET compared to whole-body PET or PET/CT

Authors: Judith E. Kalinyak, Wendie A. Berg, Kathy Schilling, Kathleen S. Madsen, Deepa Narayanan, Marie Tartar

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 2/2014

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the performance characteristics of positron emission mammography (PEM) with those of whole-body PET (WBPET) and PET/CT in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer.

Methods

A total of 178 women consented to PEM for presurgical planning in an IRB-approved protocol and also underwent either WBPET (n = 69) or PET/CT (n = 109) imaging, as per usual care at three centers. Tumor detection sensitivity, positive predictive values, and ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake were compared between the modalities. The effects of tumor size, type, and grade on detection were examined. The chi-squared or Fisher’s exact tests were used to compare distributions between groups, and McNemar’s test was used to compare distributions for paired data within subject groups, i.e. PEM versus WBPET or PEM versus PET/CT.

Results

The mean age of the women was 59 ± 12 years (median 60 years, range 26–89 years), with a mean invasive index tumor size of 1.6 ± 0.8 cm (median 1.5 cm, range 0.5–4.0 cm). PEM detected more index tumors (61/66, 92 %) than WBPET (37/66, 56 %; p < 0.001) or PET/CT (95/109, 87 % vs. 104/109, 95 % for PEM; p < 0.029). Sensitivity for the detection of additional ipsilateral malignancies was also greater with PEM (7/15, 47 %) than with WBPET (1/15, 6.7 %; p = 0.014) or PET/CT (3/23, 13 % vs. 13/23, 57 % for PEM; p = 0.003). Index tumor detection decreased with decreasing invasive tumor size for both WBPET (p = 0.002) and PET/CT (p < 0.001); PEM was not significantly affected (p = 0.20). FDG uptake, quantified in terms of maximum PEM uptake value, was lowest in ductal carcinoma in situ (median 1.5, range 0.7–3.0) and invasive lobular carcinoma (median 1.5, range 0.7–3.4), and highest in grade III invasive ductal carcinoma (median 3.1, range 1.4–12.9).

Conclusion

PEM was more sensitive than either WBPET or PET/CT in showing index and additional ipsilateral breast tumors and remained highly sensitive for tumors smaller than 1 cm.

Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62(1):10–29. doi:10.3322/caac.20138.PubMedCrossRef

Clarke M. Meta-analyses of adjuvant therapies for women with early breast cancer: the Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group overview. Ann Oncol. 2006;17 Suppl 10:x59–62. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdl238.PubMedCrossRef

Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Tan LK. MR imaging of the ipsilateral breast in women with percutaneously proven breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180(4):901–10.PubMedCrossRef

Berg WA, Gutierrez L, Nessaiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR Imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004;233(3):830–49.PubMedCrossRef

Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E. Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology. 1999;213(3):881–8.PubMedCrossRef

Hlawatsch A, Teifke A, Schmidt M, Thelen M. Preoperative assessment of breast cancer: sonography versus MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179(6):1493–501.PubMedCrossRef

Solin LJ, Orel SG, Hwang WT, Harris EE, Schnall MD. Relationship of breast magnetic resonance imaging to outcome after breast-conservation treatment with radiation for women with early-stage invasive breast carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(3):386–91. doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.09.5448.PubMedCrossRef

Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, Olivier C, Drew P, Napp V, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375:563–71.PubMedCrossRef

Peters NH, van Esser S, van den Bosch MA, Storm RK, Plaisier PW, van Dalen T, et al. Preoperative MRI and surgical management in patients with nonpalpable breast cancer: the MONET – randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(6):879–86. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2010.11.035.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Dose J, Bleckmann C, Bachmann S, Bohuslavizki KH, Berger J, Jenicke L, et al. Comparison of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and “conventional diagnostic procedures” for the detection of distant metastases in breast cancer patients. Nucl Med Commun. 2002;23(9):857–64.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Eubank WB, Mankoff D, Bhattacharya M, Gralow J, Linden H, Ellis G, et al. Impact of FDG PET on defining the extent of disease and on the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183(2):479–86.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Gallowitsch HJ, Kresnik E, Gasser J, Kumnig G, Igerc I, Mikosch P, et al. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography in the diagnosis of tumor recurrence and metastases in the follow-up of patients with breast carcinoma: a comparison to conventional imaging. Invest Radiol. 2003;38(5):250–6. doi:10.1097/01.RLI.0000063983.86229.f2.PubMed

13.

Avril N, Rose CA, Schelling M, Dose J, Kuhn W, Bense S, et al. Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(20):3495–502.PubMed

14.

Crippa F, Seregni E, Agresti R, Chiesa C, Pascali C, Bogni A, et al. Association between [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake and postoperative histopathology, hormone receptor status, thymidine labelling index and p53 in primary breast cancer: a preliminary observation. Eur J Nucl Med. 1998;25(10):1429–34.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Tatsumi M, Cohade C, Mourtzikos KA, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. Initial experience with FDG-PET/CT in the evaluation of breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;33(3):254–62. doi:10.1007/s00259-005-1835-7.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Weinberg IN, Beylin D, Zavarzin V, Yarnall S, Stepanov PY, Anashkin E, et al. Positron emission mammography: high-resolution biochemical breast imaging. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2005;4(1):55–60.PubMed

17.

MacDonald L, Edwards J, Lewellen T, Haseley D, Rogers J, Kinahan P. Clinical imaging characteristics of the positron emission mammography camera: PEM Flex Solo II. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(10):1666–75. doi:10.2967/jnumed.109.064345.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

18.

Berg WA, Weinberg IN, Narayanan D, Lobrano ME, Ross E, Amodei L, et al. High-resolution fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with compression (“positron emission mammography”) is highly accurate in depicting primary breast cancer. Breast J. 2006;12(4):309–23. doi:10.1111/j.1075-122X.2006.00269.x.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Tafra L, Cheng Z, Uddo J, Lobrano MB, Stein W, Berg WA, et al. Pilot clinical trial of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission mammography in the surgical management of breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2005;190(4):628–32. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.06.029.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Berg WA, Madsen KS, Schilling K, Tartar M, Pisano ED, Larsen LH, et al. Breast cancer: comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MR imaging in presurgical planning for the ipsilateral breast. Radiology. 2011;258(1):59–72. doi:10.1148/radiol.10100454.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Narayanan D, Madsen KS, Kalinyak JE, Berg WA. Interpretation of positron emission mammography and MRI by experienced breast imaging radiologists: performance and observer reproducibility. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(4):971–81. doi:10.2214/AJR.10.5081.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Narayanan D, Madsen KS, Kalinyak JE, Berg WA. Interpretation of positron emission mammography: feature analysis and rates of malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(4):956–70. doi:10.2214/AJR.10.4748.PubMedCrossRef

23.

D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Berg WA, Feig SA, Jackson VP, Kopans DB, et al. Breast imaging reporting and data system, BI-RADS: Mammography. 4th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2003.

24.

Groheux D, Espié M, Giacchetti S, Hindié E. Performance of FDG PET/CT in the clinical management of breast cancer. Radiology. 2013;266(2):388–405. doi:10.1148/radiol.12110853.PubMedCrossRef

25.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf accessed 7-7-2013.

26.

Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Delord M, Hindie E, Vercellino L, Cuvier C, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT in staging patients with locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer: comparison to conventional staging. J Nucl Med. 2013;54(1):5–11. doi:10.2967/jnumed.112.106864.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Groheux D, Hindie E, Delord M, Giacchetti S, Hamy AS, de Bazelaire C, et al. Prognostic impact of 18FDG-PET-CT findings in clinical stage III and IIB breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(24):1879–87. doi:10.1093/jnci/djs451.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Eo JS, Chun IK, Paeng JC, Kang KW, Lee SM, Han W, et al. Imaging sensitivity of dedicated positron emission mammography in relation to tumor size. Breast. 2012;21(1):66–71. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2011.08.002.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Avril N, Bense S, Ziegler SI, Dose J, Weber W, Laubenbacher C, et al. Breast imaging with fluorine-18-FDG PET: quantitative image analysis. J Nucl Med. 1997;38(8):1186–91.PubMed

30.

Avril N, Menzel M, Dose J, Schelling M, Weber W, Janicke F, et al. Glucose metabolism of breast cancer assessed by 18F-FDG PET: histologic and immunohistochemical tissue analysis. J Nucl Med. 2001;42(1):9–16.PubMed

31.

Veronesi U, De Cicco C, Galimberti VE, Fernandez JR, Rotmensz N, Viale G, et al. A comparative study on the value of FDG-PET and sentinel node biopsy to identify occult axillary metastases. Ann Oncol. 2007;18(3):473–8. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdl425.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Moretti JL, Porcher R, Espie M, Lehmann-Che J, et al. Correlation of high 18F-FDG uptake to clinical, pathological and biological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(3):426–35. doi:10.1007/s00259-010-1640-9.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Wang CL, MacDonald LR, Rogers JV, Aravkin A, Haseley DR, Beatty JD. Positron emission mammography: correlation of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status and 18F-FDG. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(2):W247–55. doi:10.2214/AJR.11.6478.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Rieber A, Schirrmeister H, Gabelmann A, Nuessle K, Reske S, Kreienberg R, et al. Pre-operative staging of invasive breast cancer with MR mammography and/or PET: boon or bunk? Br J Radiol. 2002;75(898):789–98.PubMed

35.

Sardanelli F, Giuseppetti GM, Panizza P, Bazzocchi M, Fausto A, Simonetti G, et al. Sensitivity of MRI versus mammography for detecting foci of multifocal, multicentric breast cancer in fatty and dense breasts using the whole-breast pathologic examination as a gold standard. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183(4):1149–57.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Berg WA, Madsen KS, Schilling K, Tartar M, Pisano ED, Larsen LH, et al. Comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MRI in the contralateral breast of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(1):219–32. doi:10.2214/AJR.10.6342.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Buggi F, Folli S, Curcio A, Casadei-Giunchi D, Rocca A, Pietri E, et al. Multicentric/multifocal breast cancer with a single histotype: is the biological characterization of all individual foci justified? Ann Oncol. 2012;23(8):2042–6. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr570.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Lee SG, Orel SG, Woo IJ, Cruz-Jove E, Putt ME, Solin LJ, et al. MR imaging screening of the contralateral breast in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer: preliminary results. Radiology. 2003;226(3):773–8.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Liberman L, Morris EA, Kim CM, Kaplan JB, Abramson AF, Menell JH, et al. MR imaging findings in the contralateral breast of women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180(2):333–41.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Shimoda W, Hayashi M, Murakami K, Oyama T, Sunagawa M. The relationship between FDG uptake in PET scans and biological behavior in breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2007;14(3):260–8.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Bevers TB, Anderson BO, Bonaccio E, Buys S, Daly MB, Dempsey PJ, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer screening and diagnosis. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009;7(10):1060–96.PubMed

42.

Kalinyak JE, Schilling K, Berg WA, Narayanan D, Mayberry JP, Rai R, et al. PET-guided breast biopsy. Breast J. 2011;17(2):143–51. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4741.2010.01044.x.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Kubota K, Itoh M, Ozaki K, Ono S, Tashiro M, Yamaguchi K, et al. Advantage of delayed whole-body FDG-PET imaging for tumour detection. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;28(6):696–703.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Breast cancer detection using high-resolution breast PET compared to whole-body PET or PET/CT
Authors: Judith E. Kalinyak
Wendie A. Berg
Kathy Schilling
Kathleen S. Madsen
Deepa Narayanan
Marie Tartar
Publication date: 01-02-2014
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 2/2014
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-013-2553-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Breast cancer detection using high-resolution breast PET compared to whole-body PET or PET/CT

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2014

Isolated cerebellar metastasis from prostate adenocarcinoma diagnosed by 18F-fluorocholine PET/CT: a rare but not impossible complication

Quantitative assessment of global lung inflammation following radiation therapy using FDG PET/CT: a pilot study

Synthesis and evaluation of 18F-labeled benzylguanidine analogs for targeting the human norepinephrine transporter

Ayfer Haydaroglu, Gokhan Ozygit (eds): Principles and Practice of Modern Radiotherapy Techniques in Breast Cancer

How smart is peptide receptor radionuclide therapy of neuroendocrine tumors especially in the salvage setting? The clinician’s perspective

Imaging acute spinal myelitis with 18F-FDG PET/CT