Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 8/2017

01-08-2017 | Breast

MRI fused with prone FDG PET/CT improves the primary tumour staging of patients with breast cancer

Authors: Maria J. Garcia-Velloso, Maria J. Ribelles, Macarena Rodriguez, Alejandro Fernandez-Montero, Lidia Sancho, Elena Prieto, Marta Santisteban, Natalia Rodriguez-Spiteri, Miguel A. Idoate, Fernando Martinez-Regueira, Arlette Elizalde, Luis J. Pina

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 8/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

Our aim was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) fused with prone 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in primary tumour staging of patients with breast cancer.

Methods

This retrospective study evaluated 45 women with 49 pathologically proven breast carcinomas. MRI and prone PET-CT scans with time-of-flight and point-spread-function reconstruction were performed with the same dedicated breast coil. The studies were assessed by a radiologist and a nuclear medicine physician, and evaluation of fused images was made by consensus. The final diagnosis was based on pathology (90 lesions) or follow-up ≥ 24 months (17 lesions).

Results

The study assessed 72 malignant and 35 benign lesions with a median size of 1.8 cm (range 0.3–8.4 cm): 31 focal, nine multifocal and nine multicentric cases. In lesion-by-lesion analysis, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 97%, 80%, 91% and 93% for MRI, 96%, 71%, 87%, and 89% for prone PET, and 97%. 94%, 97% and 94% for MRI fused with PET. Areas under the curve (AUC) were 0.953, 0.850, and 0.983, respectively (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

MRI fused with FDG-PET is more accurate than FDG-PET in primary tumour staging of breast cancer patients and increases the specificity of MRI.

Key points

FDG PET-CT may improve the specificity of MRI in breast cancer staging.
MRI fused with prone 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose PET-CT has better overall diagnostic performance than MRI.
The clinical role of fused PET-MRI has not yet been established.
Literature
1.
go back to reference DeSantis CE, Fedewa SA, Goding Sauer A, Kramer JL, Smith RA, Jemal A (2016) Breast cancer statistics, 2015: convergence of incidence rates between black and white women. CA Cancer J Clin 66:31–42CrossRefPubMed DeSantis CE, Fedewa SA, Goding Sauer A, Kramer JL, Smith RA, Jemal A (2016) Breast cancer statistics, 2015: convergence of incidence rates between black and white women. CA Cancer J Clin 66:31–42CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Caldarella C, Treglia G, Giordano A (2014) Diagnostic performance of dedicated positron emission mammography using fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in women with suspicious breast lesions: a meta-analysis. Clin Breast Cancer 14:241–248CrossRefPubMed Caldarella C, Treglia G, Giordano A (2014) Diagnostic performance of dedicated positron emission mammography using fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in women with suspicious breast lesions: a meta-analysis. Clin Breast Cancer 14:241–248CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Kim JY, Cho N, Koo HR et al (2013) Unilateral breast cancer: screening of contralateral breast by using preoperative MR imaging reduces incidence of metachronous cancer. Radiology 267:57–66CrossRefPubMed Kim JY, Cho N, Koo HR et al (2013) Unilateral breast cancer: screening of contralateral breast by using preoperative MR imaging reduces incidence of metachronous cancer. Radiology 267:57–66CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Peters NH, Borel Rinkes IH, Zuithoff NP, Mali WP, Moons KG, Peeters PH (2008) Meta-analysis of MR imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions 1. Radiology 246:116–124CrossRefPubMed Peters NH, Borel Rinkes IH, Zuithoff NP, Mali WP, Moons KG, Peeters PH (2008) Meta-analysis of MR imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions 1. Radiology 246:116–124CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Spick C, Szolar DH, Preidler KW, Tillich M, Reittner P, Baltzer PA (2015) Breast MRI used as a problem-solving tool reliably excludes malignancy. Eur J Radiol 84:61–64CrossRefPubMed Spick C, Szolar DH, Preidler KW, Tillich M, Reittner P, Baltzer PA (2015) Breast MRI used as a problem-solving tool reliably excludes malignancy. Eur J Radiol 84:61–64CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Bitencourt AG, Lima EN, Chojniak R et al (2014) Can 18F-FDG PET improve the evaluation of suspicious breast lesions on MRI? Eur J Radiol 83:1381–1386CrossRefPubMed Bitencourt AG, Lima EN, Chojniak R et al (2014) Can 18F-FDG PET improve the evaluation of suspicious breast lesions on MRI? Eur J Radiol 83:1381–1386CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Prieto E, Dominguez-Prado I, Garcia-Velloso MJ, Penuelas I, Richter JA, Marti-Climent JM (2013) Impact of time-of-flight and point-spread-function in SUV quantification for oncological PET. Clin Nucl Med 38:103–109CrossRefPubMed Prieto E, Dominguez-Prado I, Garcia-Velloso MJ, Penuelas I, Richter JA, Marti-Climent JM (2013) Impact of time-of-flight and point-spread-function in SUV quantification for oncological PET. Clin Nucl Med 38:103–109CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Canevari C, Gallivanone F, Zuber V et al (2015) Prone 18F-FDG PET-CT changes diagnostic and surgical intervention in a breast cancer patient: some considerations about PET-CT imaging acquisition protocol. Clin Imaging 39:506–509CrossRefPubMed Canevari C, Gallivanone F, Zuber V et al (2015) Prone 18F-FDG PET-CT changes diagnostic and surgical intervention in a breast cancer patient: some considerations about PET-CT imaging acquisition protocol. Clin Imaging 39:506–509CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Goerres GW, Michel SC, Fehr MK et al (2003) Follow-up of women with breast cancer: comparison between MRI and FDG PET. Eur Radiol 13:1635–1644CrossRefPubMed Goerres GW, Michel SC, Fehr MK et al (2003) Follow-up of women with breast cancer: comparison between MRI and FDG PET. Eur Radiol 13:1635–1644CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Moy L, Ponzo F, Noz ME et al (2007) Improving specificity of breast MRI using prone PET and fused MRI and PET 3D volume datasets. J Nucl Med 48:528–537CrossRefPubMed Moy L, Ponzo F, Noz ME et al (2007) Improving specificity of breast MRI using prone PET and fused MRI and PET 3D volume datasets. J Nucl Med 48:528–537CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Marti-Climent JM, Prieto E, Dominguez-Prado I et al (2013) Contribution of time of flight and point spread function modeling to the performance characteristics of the PET-CT biograph mCT scanner. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol 32:13–21PubMed Marti-Climent JM, Prieto E, Dominguez-Prado I et al (2013) Contribution of time of flight and point spread function modeling to the performance characteristics of the PET-CT biograph mCT scanner. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol 32:13–21PubMed
12.
go back to reference Benndorf M, Kotter E, Langer M, Herda C, Wu Y, Burnside ES (2015) Development of an online, publicly accessible naive bayesian decision support tool for mammographic mass lesions based on the american college of radiology (ACR) BI-RADS lexicon. Eur Radiol 25:1768–1775CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Benndorf M, Kotter E, Langer M, Herda C, Wu Y, Burnside ES (2015) Development of an online, publicly accessible naive bayesian decision support tool for mammographic mass lesions based on the american college of radiology (ACR) BI-RADS lexicon. Eur Radiol 25:1768–1775CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Pinker K, Bogner W, Baltzer P et al (2014) Improved differentiation of benign and malignant breast tumors with multiparametric 18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography magnetic resonance imaging: a feasibility study. Clin Cancer Res 20:3540–3549CrossRefPubMed Pinker K, Bogner W, Baltzer P et al (2014) Improved differentiation of benign and malignant breast tumors with multiparametric 18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography magnetic resonance imaging: a feasibility study. Clin Cancer Res 20:3540–3549CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Botsikas D, Kalovidouri A, Becker M et al (2016) Clinical utility of 18F-FDG-PET/MR for preoperative breast cancer staging. Eur Radiol 26:2297–2307 Botsikas D, Kalovidouri A, Becker M et al (2016) Clinical utility of 18F-FDG-PET/MR for preoperative breast cancer staging. Eur Radiol 26:2297–2307
15.
go back to reference Moy L, Noz ME, Maguire GQ Jr et al (2010) Role of fusion of prone FDG‐PET and magnetic resonance imaging of the breasts in the evaluation of breast cancer. Breast J 16:369–376PubMed Moy L, Noz ME, Maguire GQ Jr et al (2010) Role of fusion of prone FDG‐PET and magnetic resonance imaging of the breasts in the evaluation of breast cancer. Breast J 16:369–376PubMed
16.
go back to reference Taneja S, Jena A, Goel R, Sarin R, Kaul S (2014) Simultaneous whole-body 18 F-FDG PET-MRI in primary staging of breast cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Radiol 83:2231–2239CrossRefPubMed Taneja S, Jena A, Goel R, Sarin R, Kaul S (2014) Simultaneous whole-body 18 F-FDG PET-MRI in primary staging of breast cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Radiol 83:2231–2239CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Kitajima K, Fukushima K, Miyoshi Y et al (2015) Association between (1)(8)F-FDG uptake and molecular subtype of breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:1371–1377CrossRefPubMed Kitajima K, Fukushima K, Miyoshi Y et al (2015) Association between (1)(8)F-FDG uptake and molecular subtype of breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:1371–1377CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Ueda S, Tsuda H, Asakawa H et al (2008) Clinicopathological and prognostic relevance of uptake level using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography fusion imaging (18F-FDG PET-CT) in primary breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 38:250–258CrossRefPubMed Ueda S, Tsuda H, Asakawa H et al (2008) Clinicopathological and prognostic relevance of uptake level using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography fusion imaging (18F-FDG PET-CT) in primary breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 38:250–258CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Jadvar H, Alavi A, Gambhir SS (2009) 18F-FDG uptake in lung, breast, and colon cancers: molecular biology correlates and disease characterization. J Nucl Med 50:1820–1827CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Jadvar H, Alavi A, Gambhir SS (2009) 18F-FDG uptake in lung, breast, and colon cancers: molecular biology correlates and disease characterization. J Nucl Med 50:1820–1827CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
go back to reference Scheidhauer K, Walter C, Seemann MD (2004) FDG PET and other imaging modalities in the primary diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31:S70–S79CrossRefPubMed Scheidhauer K, Walter C, Seemann MD (2004) FDG PET and other imaging modalities in the primary diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31:S70–S79CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Schilling K, Narayanan D, Kalinyak JE et al (2011) Positron emission mammography in breast cancer presurgical planning: comparisons with magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38:23–36CrossRefPubMed Schilling K, Narayanan D, Kalinyak JE et al (2011) Positron emission mammography in breast cancer presurgical planning: comparisons with magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38:23–36CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Berg WA, Madsen KS, Schilling K et al (2011) Breast cancer: comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MR imaging in presurgical planning for the ipsilateral breast 1. Radiology 258:59–72CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Berg WA, Madsen KS, Schilling K et al (2011) Breast cancer: comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MR imaging in presurgical planning for the ipsilateral breast 1. Radiology 258:59–72CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
MRI fused with prone FDG PET/CT improves the primary tumour staging of patients with breast cancer
Authors
Maria J. Garcia-Velloso
Maria J. Ribelles
Macarena Rodriguez
Alejandro Fernandez-Montero
Lidia Sancho
Elena Prieto
Marta Santisteban
Natalia Rodriguez-Spiteri
Miguel A. Idoate
Fernando Martinez-Regueira
Arlette Elizalde
Luis J. Pina
Publication date
01-08-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 8/2017
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4685-8

Other articles of this Issue 8/2017

European Radiology 8/2017 Go to the issue