Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 12/2020

Open Access 01-11-2020 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Original Article

Prospective evaluation of whole-body MRI and 18F-FDG PET/MRI in N and M staging of primary breast cancer patients

Authors: Nils Martin Bruckmann, Lino M. Sawicki, Julian Kirchner, Ole Martin, Lale Umutlu, Ken Herrmann, Wolfgang Fendler, Ann-Kathrin Bittner, Oliver Hoffmann, Svjetlana Mohrmann, Frederic Dietzel, Marc Ingenwerth, Benedikt M. Schaarschmidt, Yan Li, Bernd Kowall, Andreas Stang, Gerald Antoch, Christian Buchbender

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 12/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate and compare the diagnostic potential of whole-body MRI and whole-body 18F-FDG PET/MRI for N and M staging in newly diagnosed, histopathologically proven breast cancer.

Material and methods

A total of 104 patients (age 53.4 ± 12.5) with newly diagnosed, histopathologically proven breast cancer were enrolled in this study prospectively. All patients underwent a whole-body 18F-FDG PET/MRI. MRI and 18F-FDG PET/MRI datasets were evaluated separately regarding lesion count, lesion localization, and lesion characterization (malignant/benign) as well as the diagnostic confidence (5-point ordinal scale, 1–5). The N and M stages were assessed according to the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging manual in MRI datasets alone and in 18F-FDG PET/MRI datasets, respectively. In the majority of lesions histopathology served as the reference standard. The remaining lesions were followed-up by imaging and clinical examination. Separately for nodal-positive and nodal-negative women, a McNemar chi2 test was performed to compare sensitivity and specificity of the N and M stages between 18F-FDG PET/MRI and MRI. Differences in diagnostic confidence scores were assessed by Wilcoxon signed rank test.

Results

MRI determined the N stage correctly in 78 of 104 (75%) patients with a sensitivity of 62.3% (95% CI: 0.48–0.75), a specificity of 88.2% (95% CI: 0.76–0.96), a PPV (positive predictive value) of 84.6% % (95% CI: 69.5–0.94), and a NPV (negative predictive value) of 69.2% (95% CI: 0.57–0.8). Corresponding results for 18F-FDG PET/MRI were 87/104 (83.7%), 75.5% (95% CI: 0.62–0.86), 92.2% (0.81–0.98), 90% (0.78–0.97), and 78.3% (0.66–0.88), showing a significantly better sensitivity of 18F-FDG PET/MRI determining malignant lymph nodes (p = 0.008). The M stage was identified correctly in MRI and 18F-FDG PET/MRI in 100 of 104 patients (96.2%). Both modalities correctly staged all 7 patients with distant metastases, leading to false-positive findings in 4 patients in each modality (3.8%). In a lesion-based analysis, 18F-FDG PET/MRI showed a significantly better performance in correctly determining malignant lesions (85.8% vs. 67.1%, difference 18.7% (95% CI: 0.13–0.26), p < 0.0001) and offered a superior diagnostic confidence compared with MRI alone (4.1 ± 0.7 vs. 3.4 ± 0.7, p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

18F-FDG PET/MRI has a better diagnostic accuracy for N staging in primary breast cancer patients and provides a significantly higher diagnostic confidence in lesion characterization than MRI alone. But both modalities bear the risk to overestimate the M stage.
Literature
1.
go back to reference The Global Cancer Observatory G. Breast Cancer. Source: Globocan 2018. World Heal Organ. 2018;876:2018–9. The Global Cancer Observatory G. Breast Cancer. Source: Globocan 2018. World Heal Organ. 2018;876:2018–9.
2.
go back to reference Michaelson JS, Chen LL, Silverstein MJ, Mihm MCJ, Sober AJ, Tanabe KK, et al. How cancer at the primary site and in the lymph nodes contributes to the risk of cancer death. Cancer. 2009;115(21):5095–107.CrossRef Michaelson JS, Chen LL, Silverstein MJ, Mihm MCJ, Sober AJ, Tanabe KK, et al. How cancer at the primary site and in the lymph nodes contributes to the risk of cancer death. Cancer. 2009;115(21):5095–107.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Cardoso F, Senkus E, Costa A, Papadopoulos E, Aapro M, André F, et al. 4th ESO-ESMO international consensus guidelines for advanced breast cancer (ABC 4). Ann Oncol. 2018;29(8):1634–57. Cardoso F, Senkus E, Costa A, Papadopoulos E, Aapro M, André F, et al. 4th ESO-ESMO international consensus guidelines for advanced breast cancer (ABC 4). Ann Oncol. 2018;29(8):1634–57.
4.
go back to reference Wockel A, Festl J, Stuber T, Brust K, Krockenberger M, Heuschmann PU, et al. Interdisciplinary screening, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up of breast cancer. Guideline of the DGGG and the DKG (S3-level, AWMF registry number 032/045OL, December 2017) - part 2 with recommendations for the therapy of primary, recurrent and advanced Br. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2018 Nov;78(11):1056–88.CrossRef Wockel A, Festl J, Stuber T, Brust K, Krockenberger M, Heuschmann PU, et al. Interdisciplinary screening, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up of breast cancer. Guideline of the DGGG and the DKG (S3-level, AWMF registry number 032/045OL, December 2017) - part 2 with recommendations for the therapy of primary, recurrent and advanced Br. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2018 Nov;78(11):1056–88.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference NCCN. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology breast cancer, Version 2.2016. NCCN.org. 2016 NCCN. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology breast cancer, Version 2.2016. NCCN.​org. 2016
6.
go back to reference Menezes GL, Knuttel FM, Stehouwer BL, Pijnappel RM, van den Bosch MA. Magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: a literature review and future perspectives. World J Clin Oncol. 2014;5(2):61–70.CrossRef Menezes GL, Knuttel FM, Stehouwer BL, Pijnappel RM, van den Bosch MA. Magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: a literature review and future perspectives. World J Clin Oncol. 2014;5(2):61–70.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, Penault-Llorca F, Poortmans P, Rutgers E, et al. Primary breast cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol. 2015;26(Suppl 5):v8-30. Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, Penault-Llorca F, Poortmans P, Rutgers E, et al. Primary breast cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol. 2015;26(Suppl 5):v8-30.
8.
go back to reference Hausmann D, Kern C, Schröder M. Ganzkörper-MRT in der präoperativen Diagnostik des Mammakarzinoms – ein Vergleich mit den Staging- methoden in der S 3-Leitlinie whole-body MRI in preoperative diagnostics of breast cancer – a comparison of. Fortschritte Röntgenstrahlen. 2011;183:1130–7.CrossRef Hausmann D, Kern C, Schröder M. Ganzkörper-MRT in der präoperativen Diagnostik des Mammakarzinoms – ein Vergleich mit den Staging- methoden in der S 3-Leitlinie whole-body MRI in preoperative diagnostics of breast cancer – a comparison of. Fortschritte Röntgenstrahlen. 2011;183:1130–7.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Buchbender C, Schaarschmidt BM, Gomez B, Ruhlmann V, et al. Comparative performance of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in detection and characterization of pulmonary lesions in 121 oncologic patients. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(4):582–6.CrossRef Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Buchbender C, Schaarschmidt BM, Gomez B, Ruhlmann V, et al. Comparative performance of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in detection and characterization of pulmonary lesions in 121 oncologic patients. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(4):582–6.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Buchbender C, Schaarschmidt BM, Gomez B, Ruhlmann V, et al. Evaluation of the outcome of lung nodules missed on 18F-FDG PET/MRI compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with known malignancies. J Nucl Med. 2016 Jan;57(1):15–20.CrossRef Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Buchbender C, Schaarschmidt BM, Gomez B, Ruhlmann V, et al. Evaluation of the outcome of lung nodules missed on 18F-FDG PET/MRI compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with known malignancies. J Nucl Med. 2016 Jan;57(1):15–20.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference 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. 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.
12.
go back to reference Ulaner GA. PET/CT for patients with breast cancer: where is the clinical impact? Am J Roentgenol. 2019;213(2):254–65. Ulaner GA. PET/CT for patients with breast cancer: where is the clinical impact? Am J Roentgenol. 2019;213(2):254–65.
13.
go back to reference Ulaner GA, Castillo R, Goldman DA, Wills J, Riedl CC, Pinker-Domenig K, et al. 18F-FDG-PET/CT for systemic staging of newly diagnosed triple-negative breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(11):1937–44. Ulaner GA, Castillo R, Goldman DA, Wills J, Riedl CC, Pinker-Domenig K, et al. 18F-FDG-PET/CT for systemic staging of newly diagnosed triple-negative breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(11):1937–44.
14.
go back to reference Beiderwellen K, Grueneisen J, Ruhlmann V, Buderath P, Aktas B, Heusch P, et al. [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI vs. PET/CT for whole-body staging in patients with recurrent malignancies of the female pelvis: initial results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Jan;42(1):56–65.CrossRef Beiderwellen K, Grueneisen J, Ruhlmann V, Buderath P, Aktas B, Heusch P, et al. [(18)F]FDG PET/MRI vs. PET/CT for whole-body staging in patients with recurrent malignancies of the female pelvis: initial results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Jan;42(1):56–65.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Beiderwellen K, Gomez B, Buchbender C, Hartung V, Poeppel TD, Nensa F, et al. Depiction and characterization of liver lesions in whole body [(1)(8)F]-FDG PET/MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82(11):e669–75.CrossRef Beiderwellen K, Gomez B, Buchbender C, Hartung V, Poeppel TD, Nensa F, et al. Depiction and characterization of liver lesions in whole body [(1)(8)F]-FDG PET/MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82(11):e669–75.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Heusch P, Buchbender C, Kohler J, Nensa F, Gauler T, Gomez B, et al. Thoracic staging in lung cancer: prospective comparison of 18F-FDG PET/MR imaging and 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(3):373–8.CrossRef Heusch P, Buchbender C, Kohler J, Nensa F, Gauler T, Gomez B, et al. Thoracic staging in lung cancer: prospective comparison of 18F-FDG PET/MR imaging and 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(3):373–8.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Kirchner J, Sawicki LM, Nensa F, Schaarschmidt BM, Reis H, Ingenwerth M, et al. Prospective comparison of 18 F-FDG PET/MRI and 18 F-FDG PET/CT for thoracic staging of non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(2):437–45.CrossRef Kirchner J, Sawicki LM, Nensa F, Schaarschmidt BM, Reis H, Ingenwerth M, et al. Prospective comparison of 18 F-FDG PET/MRI and 18 F-FDG PET/CT for thoracic staging of non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(2):437–45.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Botsikas D, Bagetakos I, Picarra M, Da Cunha Afonso Barisits AC, Boudabbous S, Montet X, et al. What is the diagnostic performance of 18-FDG-PET/MR compared to PET/CT for the N- and M- staging of breast cancer? Eur Radiol. 2019;29(4):1787–98.CrossRef Botsikas D, Bagetakos I, Picarra M, Da Cunha Afonso Barisits AC, Boudabbous S, Montet X, et al. What is the diagnostic performance of 18-FDG-PET/MR compared to PET/CT for the N- and M- staging of breast cancer? Eur Radiol. 2019;29(4):1787–98.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Buchbender C, Nagarajah J, Umutlu L, et al. Evaluation of 18F-FDG PET/MRI, 18F-FDG PET/CT, MRI, and CT in whole-body staging of recurrent breast cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(2):459–65.CrossRef Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Schaarschmidt BM, Buchbender C, Nagarajah J, Umutlu L, et al. Evaluation of 18F-FDG PET/MRI, 18F-FDG PET/CT, MRI, and CT in whole-body staging of recurrent breast cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(2):459–65.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Grueneisen J, Sawicki LM, Wetter A, Kirchner J, Kinner S, Aktas B, et al. Evaluation of PET and MR datasets in integrated 18F-FDG PET/MRI: a comparison of different MR sequences for whole-body restaging of breast cancer patients. Eur J Radiol. 2017 Apr;89:14–9.CrossRef Grueneisen J, Sawicki LM, Wetter A, Kirchner J, Kinner S, Aktas B, et al. Evaluation of PET and MR datasets in integrated 18F-FDG PET/MRI: a comparison of different MR sequences for whole-body restaging of breast cancer patients. Eur J Radiol. 2017 Apr;89:14–9.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Melsaether AN, Raad RA, Pujara AC, Ponzo FD, Pysarenko KM, Jhaveri K, et al. Comparison of whole-body 18F FDG PET/MR imaging and whole-body 18F FDG PET/CT in terms of lesion detection and radiation dose in patients with breast cancer. Radiology. 2016;281(1):193–202. Melsaether AN, Raad RA, Pujara AC, Ponzo FD, Pysarenko KM, Jhaveri K, et al. Comparison of whole-body 18F FDG PET/MR imaging and whole-body 18F FDG PET/CT in terms of lesion detection and radiation dose in patients with breast cancer. Radiology. 2016;281(1):193–202. 
22.
go back to reference Grueneisen J, Nagarajah J, Buchbender C, Hoffmann O, Schaarschmidt BM, Poeppel T, et al. Positron emission tomography / magnetic resonance imaging for local tumor staging in patients with primary breast cancer. Investig Radiol. 2015;50(8):1–9.CrossRef Grueneisen J, Nagarajah J, Buchbender C, Hoffmann O, Schaarschmidt BM, Poeppel T, et al. Positron emission tomography / magnetic resonance imaging for local tumor staging in patients with primary breast cancer. Investig Radiol. 2015;50(8):1–9.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Sawicki LM, Kirchner J, Umutlu L, Forsting M, Schaarschmidt BM, Ruhlmann V, et al. Comparison of 18F–FDG PET/MRI and MRI alone for whole-body staging and potential impact on therapeutic management of women with suspected recurrent pelvic cancer: a follow-up study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;45(4):622–9.CrossRef Sawicki LM, Kirchner J, Umutlu L, Forsting M, Schaarschmidt BM, Ruhlmann V, et al. Comparison of 18F–FDG PET/MRI and MRI alone for whole-body staging and potential impact on therapeutic management of women with suspected recurrent pelvic cancer: a follow-up study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;45(4):622–9.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Balassanian R, Blair SL, Burstein HJ, Cyr A, et al. Invasive breast cancer version 1.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2016;14(3):324–54. Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Balassanian R, Blair SL, Burstein HJ, Cyr A, et al. Invasive breast cancer version 1.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2016;14(3):324–54.
25.
go back to reference Ulaner GA, Castillo R, Wills J, Gönen M, Goldman DA. 18F–FDG-PET/CT for systemic staging of patients with newly diagnosed ER-positive and HER2-positive breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(9):1420–27. Ulaner GA, Castillo R, Wills J, Gönen M, Goldman DA. 18F–FDG-PET/CT for systemic staging of patients with newly diagnosed ER-positive and HER2-positive breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(9):1420–27.
26.
go back to reference Riedl CC, Slobod E, Jochelson M, Morrow M, Goldman DA, Gonen M, et al. Retrospective analysis of 18F-FDG PET/CT for staging asymptomatic breast cancer patients younger than 40 years. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(10):1578–83. Riedl CC, Slobod E, Jochelson M, Morrow M, Goldman DA, Gonen M, et al. Retrospective analysis of 18F-FDG PET/CT for staging asymptomatic breast cancer patients younger than 40 years. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(10):1578–83. 
27.
go back to reference Spick C, Herrmann K, Czernin J. 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI perform equally well in cancer: evidence from studies on more than 2,300 patients. J Nucl Med. 2016. Spick C, Herrmann K, Czernin J. 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI perform equally well in cancer: evidence from studies on more than 2,300 patients. J Nucl Med. 2016.
28.
go back to reference Grueneisen J, Beiderwellen K, Heusch P, Gratz M, Schulze-Hagen A, Heubner M, et al. Simultaneous positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging for whole-body staging in patients with recurrent gynecological malignancies of the pelvis: a comparison to whole-body magnetic resonance imaging alone. Investig Radiol. 2014. Grueneisen J, Beiderwellen K, Heusch P, Gratz M, Schulze-Hagen A, Heubner M, et al. Simultaneous positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging for whole-body staging in patients with recurrent gynecological malignancies of the pelvis: a comparison to whole-body magnetic resonance imaging alone. Investig Radiol. 2014.
29.
go back to reference Kanda T, Kitajima K, Suenaga Y, Konishi J, Sasaki R, Morimoto K, et al. Value of retrospective image fusion of 18F-FDG PET and MRI for preoperative staging of head and neck cancer: comparison with PET/CT and contrast-enhanced neck MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82(11):2005–10.CrossRef Kanda T, Kitajima K, Suenaga Y, Konishi J, Sasaki R, Morimoto K, et al. Value of retrospective image fusion of 18F-FDG PET and MRI for preoperative staging of head and neck cancer: comparison with PET/CT and contrast-enhanced neck MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82(11):2005–10.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Anderson WF, Reiner AS, Matsuno RK, Pfeiffer RM. Shifting breast cancer trends in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(25):3923–9. Anderson WF, Reiner AS, Matsuno RK, Pfeiffer RM. Shifting breast cancer trends in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(25):3923–9. 
31.
go back to reference van Nijnatten TJA, Goorts B, Vöö S, de Boer M, Kooreman LFS, Heuts EM, et al. Added value of dedicated axillary hybrid 18F-FDG PET/MRI for improved axillary nodal staging in clinically node-positive breast cancer patients: a feasibility study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(2):179–186. van Nijnatten TJA, Goorts B, Vöö S, de Boer M, Kooreman LFS, Heuts EM, et al. Added value of dedicated axillary hybrid 18F-FDG PET/MRI for improved axillary nodal staging in clinically node-positive breast cancer patients: a feasibility study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(2):179–186. 
32.
go back to reference Grueneisen J, Nagarajah J, Buchbender C, Hoffmann O, Schaarschmidt BM, Poeppel T, et al. Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging for local tumor staging in patients with primary breast cancer: a comparison with positron emission tomography/computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Investig Radiol. 2015;50(8):505–13. Grueneisen J, Nagarajah J, Buchbender C, Hoffmann O, Schaarschmidt BM, Poeppel T, et al. Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging for local tumor staging in patients with primary breast cancer: a comparison with positron emission tomography/computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Investig Radiol. 2015;50(8):505–13. 
33.
go back to reference Tabouret-Viaud C, Botsikas D, Delattre BMA, Mainta I, Amzalag G, Rager O, et al. PET/MR in breast cancer. Semin Nucl Med. 2015;45(4):304–21.CrossRef Tabouret-Viaud C, Botsikas D, Delattre BMA, Mainta I, Amzalag G, Rager O, et al. PET/MR in breast cancer. Semin Nucl Med. 2015;45(4):304–21.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Kirchner J, Grueneisen J, Martin O, Oehmigen M, Quick HH, Bittner AK, et al. Local and whole-body staging in patients with primary breast cancer: a comparison of one-step to two-step staging utilizing 18F-FDG-PET/MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(13):2328–37.CrossRef Kirchner J, Grueneisen J, Martin O, Oehmigen M, Quick HH, Bittner AK, et al. Local and whole-body staging in patients with primary breast cancer: a comparison of one-step to two-step staging utilizing 18F-FDG-PET/MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(13):2328–37.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Ergul N, Kadioglu H, Yildiz S, Yucel SB, Gucin Z, Erdogan EB, et al. Assessment of multifocality and axillary nodal involvement in early-stage breast cancer patients using 18F-FDG PET/CT compared to contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and sentinel node biopsy. Acta Radiol. 2015;56(8):917–23. Ergul N, Kadioglu H, Yildiz S, Yucel SB, Gucin Z, Erdogan EB, et al. Assessment of multifocality and axillary nodal involvement in early-stage breast cancer patients using 18F-FDG PET/CT compared to contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and sentinel node biopsy. Acta Radiol. 2015;56(8):917–23.
36.
go back to reference Lee B, Lim AK, Krell J, Satchithananda K, Coombes RC, Lewis JS, et al. The efficacy of axillary ultrasound in the detection of nodal metastasis in breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(3):w314–20. Lee B, Lim AK, Krell J, Satchithananda K, Coombes RC, Lewis JS, et al. The efficacy of axillary ultrasound in the detection of nodal metastasis in breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(3):w314–20. 
37.
go back to reference Valente SA, Levine GM, Silverstein MJ, Rayhanabad JA, Weng-Grumley JG, Ji L, et al. Accuracy of predicting axillary lymph node positivity by physical examination, mammography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(6):1825–30. Valente SA, Levine GM, Silverstein MJ, Rayhanabad JA, Weng-Grumley JG, Ji L, et al. Accuracy of predicting axillary lymph node positivity by physical examination, mammography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(6):1825–30.
38.
go back to reference Catalano OA, Daye D, Signore A, Iannace C, Vangel M, Luongo A, et al. Staging performance of whole-body DWI, PET/CT and PET/MRI in invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Int J Oncol. 2017;51(1):281–8. Catalano OA, Daye D, Signore A, Iannace C, Vangel M, Luongo A, et al. Staging performance of whole-body DWI, PET/CT and PET/MRI in invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Int J Oncol. 2017;51(1):281–8.
39.
go back to reference Plecha DM. Faulhaber P. European Journal of Radiology: PET/MRI of the breast; 2017. Plecha DM. Faulhaber P. European Journal of Radiology: PET/MRI of the breast; 2017.
40.
go back to reference Catalano OA, Nicolai E, Rosen BR, Luongo A, Catalano M, Iannace C, et al. Comparison of CE-FDG-PET/CT with CE-FDG-PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2015;112(9):1452–60. Catalano OA, Nicolai E, Rosen BR, Luongo A, Catalano M, Iannace C, et al. Comparison of CE-FDG-PET/CT with CE-FDG-PET/MR in the evaluation of osseous metastases in breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2015;112(9):1452–60. 
41.
go back to reference Pace L, Nicolai E, Luongo A, Aiello M, Catalano OA, Soricelli A, et al. Comparison of whole-body PET/CT and PET/MRI in breast cancer patients: lesion detection and quantitation of 18F-deoxyglucose uptake in lesions and in normal organ tissues. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(2):289–96. Pace L, Nicolai E, Luongo A, Aiello M, Catalano OA, Soricelli A, et al. Comparison of whole-body PET/CT and PET/MRI in breast cancer patients: lesion detection and quantitation of 18F-deoxyglucose uptake in lesions and in normal organ tissues. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(2):289–96. 
42.
go back to reference Gückel B, Gatidis S, Enck P, Schäfer J, Bisdas S, Pfannenberg C, et al. Patient comfort during positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography/computed tomography examinations: subjective assessments with visual analog scales. Investig Radiol. 2015;50(10):726–32. Gückel B, Gatidis S, Enck P, Schäfer J, Bisdas S, Pfannenberg C, et al. Patient comfort during positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography/computed tomography examinations: subjective assessments with visual analog scales. Investig Radiol. 2015;50(10):726–32.
Metadata
Title
Prospective evaluation of whole-body MRI and 18F-FDG PET/MRI in N and M staging of primary breast cancer patients
Authors
Nils Martin Bruckmann
Lino M. Sawicki
Julian Kirchner
Ole Martin
Lale Umutlu
Ken Herrmann
Wolfgang Fendler
Ann-Kathrin Bittner
Oliver Hoffmann
Svjetlana Mohrmann
Frederic Dietzel
Marc Ingenwerth
Benedikt M. Schaarschmidt
Yan Li
Bernd Kowall
Andreas Stang
Gerald Antoch
Christian Buchbender
Publication date
01-11-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 12/2020
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-04801-2

Other articles of this Issue 12/2020

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 12/2020 Go to the issue