Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Nuclear Medicine
Published in: Annals of Nuclear Medicine 2/2016

01-02-2016 | Original Article

A preliminary report of breast cancer screening by positron emission mammography

Authors: Yayoi Yamamoto, Youichiro Tasaki, Yukiko Kuwada, Yukihiko Ozawa, Tomio Inoue

Published in: Annals of Nuclear Medicine | Issue 2/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/computed tomography (PET/CT) have had a considerable impact on the detection of various malignancies. PET and PET/CT are minimally invasive methods that can provide whole-body imaging at one time. Therefore, an FDG-PET cancer screening program has been widely used in Japan. However, the breast cancer detection rate of FDG-PET cancer screening is relatively low. Therefore, FDG-PET screening is not recommended for breast cancer screening. Positron emission mammography (PEM) is a high-resolution molecular breast imaging technology. PEM can detect small breast cancers that cannot be detected on PET or PET/CT images due to limited spatial resolution. We have performed opportunistic breast cancer screening using PEM since 2011. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report regarding PEM breast cancer screening.

Methods

This study enrolled 265 women. PEM images were analyzed by agreement of 2 experienced nuclear medicine physicians. The readers were given information from medical interview sheet. US findings were interpreted holistically. The number of participants, patient recall rate, further examination rate, and cancer detection rate by year were calculated.

Results

The overall recall rate was 8.3 %; the work-up examination rate was 77.3 %, and cancer detection rate was 2.3 %. The positive predictive value of PEM was 27.3 %. Six cancers were found by PEM screening. Five were invasive cancers and one was ductal carcinoma in situ. Histological tumor sizes were reported in three cases: 0.7, 1.2, and 2 cm.

Conclusion

PEM screening appears to have potential for breast cancer screening.
Literature
1.
Minamimoto R, Senda M, Terauchi T, Jinnouchi S, Inoue T, Iinuma T, et al. Analysis of various malignant neoplasms detected by FDG-PET cancer screening program: based on a Japanese Nationwide Survey. Ann Nucl Med. 2011;25:45–54. doi:10.​1007/​s12149-010-0428-0.CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
Minamimoto R, Senda M, Uno K, Jinnouchi S, Iinuma T, Ito K, et al. Performance profile of FDG-PET and PET/CT for cancer screening on the basis of a Japanese Nationwide Survey. Ann Nucl Med. 2007;21:481–98.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Kojima S, Zhou B, Teramukai S, Hara A, Kosaka N, Matsuo Y, et al. Cancer screening of healthy volunteers using whole-body 18F-FDG-PET scans: the Nishidai clinic study. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:1842–8.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Terauchi T, Murano T, Daisaki H, Kanou D, Shoda H, Kakinuma R, et al. Evaluation of whole-body cancer screening using 18F-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-d-glucose positron emission tomography: a preliminary report. Ann Nucl Med. 2008;22:379–85. doi:10.​1007/​s12149-008-0130-7.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Ohuchi N, Yoshida K, Kimura M, Ouchi A, Kamioki S, Shiiba K, et al. Improved detection rate of early breast cancer in mass screening combined with mammography. Jpn J Cancer Res. 1993;84:807–12.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Tozaki M, Isomoto I, Kojima Y, Kubota K, Kuroki Y, Ohnuki K, et al. The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guideline for screening and imaging diagnosis of breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2015;22:28–36. doi:10.​1007/​s12282-014-0557-8.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Bénard F, Turcotte E. Imaging in breast cancer: single-photon computed tomography and positron-emission tomography. Breast Cancer Res. 2005;7:153–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Eubank WB, Mankoff DA. Evolving role of positron emission tomography in breast cancer imaging. Semin Nucl Med. 2005;35:84–99.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Avril N, Rosé 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;18:3495–502.PubMed
11.
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;12:309–23.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Narayanan D, Madsen KS, Kalinyak JE. Berg WAInterpretation of positron emission mammography and MRI by experienced breast imaging radiologists: performance and observer reproducibility. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:971–81. doi:10.​2214/​AJR.​10.​5081.CrossRef
13.
Berg WA, Madsen KS, Schilling K, Tartar M, Pisano ED, Larsen LH, Narayanan D, et al. Breast cancer: comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MR imaging in presurgical planning for the ipsilateral breast. Radiology. 2011;258:59–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
15.
Yamamoto Y, Tasaki Y, KuwadaY Ozawa Y, Katayama K, Kanemaki Y, et al. Positron emission mammography (PEM): reviewing standardized semiquantitative method. ANM. 2013;27:795–801.
16.
Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen AM, Chen TH. The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol Clin North Am. 2004;42:793–806.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen HH, Duffy SW, Smart CR, Gad A, et al. Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age. New results from the Swedish Two-County Trial. Cancer. 1995;75:2507–17.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Shapiro S. Periodic screening for breast cancer: the HIP Randomized Controlled Trial. Health Insurance Plan. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;22:27–30.PubMed
19.
20.
Matsuda T, Marugame T, Kamo K, Katanoda K, Ajiki W, Sobue v, Japan Cancer Surveillance Research Group. Cancer incidence and incidence rates in Japan in based on data from 12 population-based cancer registries in the Monitoring of Cancer Incidence in Japan (MCIJ) project. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2005;2011(41):139–47. doi:10.​1093/​jjco/​hyq169.
21.
Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, Ioffe OB. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004;233:830–49.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Tan LK. MR imaging of the ipsilateral breast in women with percutaneously proven breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:901–10.CrossRef
23.
Grobner T. Gadolinium—a specific trigger for the development of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis? Nephrol Dial Transpl. 2006;21:1104–8.CrossRef
24.
25.
Eo JS, Chun IK, Paeng JC, et al. Imaging sensitivity of dedicated positron emission mammography in relation to tumor size. Breast. 2012;21:66–71.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Kalinyak JE, Berg WA, Schilling K, et al. Breast cancer detection using high-resolution breast PET compared to whole-body PET or PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:260–75.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Yamamoto Y, Ozawa Y, Kubouchi K, Nakamura S, Nakajima Y, Inoue I. Comparative analysis of imaging sensitivity of positron emission mammography and whole-body PET in relation to tumor size. Clin Nucl Med. 2015;40:21–5.CrossRefPubMed
28.
29.
Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L, European Commission, editors. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2006.
30.
31.
32.
Vranjesevic D, Schiepers C, Silverman DH, Quon A, Villalpando J, Dahlborn M, et al. Relationship between 18F-FDG uptake and breast density in women with normal breast tissue. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1238–42.PubMed
33.
Kumar R, Mitchell S, Alavi A. 18F-FDG uptake and breast density in women with normal breast tissue. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1423.PubMed
34.
35.
Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Böhm-Vélez M, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2010;2008(299):2151–63. doi:10.​1001/​jama.​299.​18.​2151 (Erratum. In: JAMA; 303(15): 1482).
36.
International Commission of the International Commission on Radiological. Protection (ICRCP Publication 60). Ann ICRP. 1991;21:1–20.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A preliminary report of breast cancer screening by positron emission mammography
Authors
Yayoi Yamamoto
Youichiro Tasaki
Yukiko Kuwada
Yukihiko Ozawa
Tomio Inoue
Publication date
01-02-2016
Publisher
Springer Japan
Published in
Annals of Nuclear Medicine / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 0914-7187
Electronic ISSN: 1864-6433
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-015-1040-0

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

Annals of Nuclear Medicine 2/2016 Go to the issue

Original Article

The edge artifact in the point-spread function-based PET reconstruction at different sphere-to-background ratios of radioactivity

Original Article

Current generation time-of-flight 18F-FDG PET/CT provides higher SUVs for normal adrenal glands, while maintaining an accurate characterization of benign and malignant glands

Case Report

A case report of image-based dosimetry of bone metastases with Alpharadin (223Ra-dichloride) therapy: inter-fraction variability of absorbed dose and follow-up

Original Article

FDG PET/CT for assessing the resectability of NSCLC patients with N2 disease after neoadjuvant therapy

Acknowledgements to Reviewers

Acknowledgements to reviewers

Original Article

Comparison of FDG PET/CT and MRI in lymph node staging of endometrial cancer