Top

Published in:

01-09-2017 | Review

Potential Clinical Applications of ¹⁸F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Mammography in Breast Cancer

Authors: Ihn-Ho Cho, Eun-Jung Kong

Published in: Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 3/2017

Abstract

The whole-body positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance (MR) scan is a cutting edge technology providing comprehensive structural information from MR imaging and functional features from PET in a single session. Recent research findings and clinical experience have shown that ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) whole-body PET/MR imaging has a diagnostic performance comparable with or superior to that of PET/CT in the field of oncology, including for breast cancer. In particular, FDG PET/MR mammography in the prone position with the breast hanging in a pendant manner can provide more comprehensive information about the metabolism, anatomy, and functional features of a breast lesion than a whole-body PET/MR scan. This article reports on current state-of-the-art PET/MR mammography in patients with breast cancer and the prospects for potential application in the future.

Weir L, Worsley D, Bernstein V. The value of FDG positron emission tomography in the management of patients with breast cancer. Breast J. 2005;11:204–9.CrossRefPubMed

Eubank WB, Mankoff DA. Evolving role of positron emission tomography in breast cancer imaging. Semin Nucl Med. 2005;35:84–99.CrossRefPubMed

Lind P, Igerc I, Beyer T, Reinprecht P, Hausegger K. Advantages and limitations of FDG PET in the follow-up of breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31 Suppl 1:S125–34.PubMed

Czernin J. FDG-PET in breast cancer: a different view of its clinical usefulness. Mol Imaging Biol. 2002;4:35–45.CrossRefPubMed

Heusner TA, Freudenberg LS, Kuehl H, Hauth EA, Veit-Haibach P, Forsting M, et al. Whole-body PET/CT-mammography for staging breast cancer: initial results. Br J Radiol. 2008;81:743–8.CrossRefPubMed

Heusner TA, Kuemmel S, Umutlu L, Koeninger A, Freudenberg LS, Hauth EA, et al. Breast cancer staging in a single session: whole-body PET/CT mammography. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1215–22.CrossRefPubMed

Huellner MW, Appenzeller P, Kuhn FP, Husmann L, Pietsch CM, Burger IA, et al. Whole-body nonenhanced PET/MR versus PET/CT in the staging and restaging of cancers: preliminary observations. Radiology. 2014;273:859–69.CrossRefPubMed

Drzezga A, Souvatzoglou M, Eiber M, Beer AJ, Furst S, Martinez-Moller A, et al. First clinical experience with integrated whole-body PET/MR: comparison to PET/CT in patients with oncologic diagnoses. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:845–55.CrossRefPubMed

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;83:289–96.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Kong EJ, Chun KA, Bom HS, Lee J, Lee SJ, Cho IH. Initial experience of integrated PET/MR mammography in patients with invasive ductal carcinoma. Hell J Nucl Med. 2014;17:171–6.PubMed

11.

Kuhl C. The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology. 2007;244:356–78.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Kuhl CK. Current status of breast MR imaging. Part 2. Clinical applications. Radiology. 2007;244:672–91.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Tellmann L, Quick HH, Bockisch A, Herzog H, Beyer T. The effect of MR surface coils on PET quantification in whole-body PET/MR: results from a pseudo-PET/MR phantom study. Med Phys. 2011;38:2795–805.CrossRefPubMed

14.

MacDonald LR, Kohlmyer S, Liu C, Lewellen TK, Kinahan PE. Effects of MR surface coils on PET quantification. Med Phys. 2011;38:2948–56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Paulus DH, Braun H, Aklan B, Quick HH. Simultaneous PET/MR imaging: MR-based attenuation correction of local radiofrequency surface coils. Med Phys. 2012;39:4306–15.CrossRef

16.

Aklan B, Paulus DH, Wenkel E, Braun H, Navalpakkam BK, Ziegler S, et al. Toward simultaneous PET/MR breast imaging: systematic evaluation and integration of a radiofrequency breast coil. Med Phys. 2013;40:024301.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Dregely I, Lanz T, Metz S, Mueller MF, Kuschan M, Nimbalkar M, et al. A 16-channel MR coil for simultaneous PET/MR imaging in breast cancer. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:1154–61.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Brendle C, Schmidt H, Oergel A, Bezrukov I, Mueller M, Schraml C, et al. Segmentation-based attenuation correction in positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance: erroneous tissue identification and its impact on positron emission tomography interpretation. Invest Radiol. 2015;50:339–46.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Keller SH, Holm S, Hansen AE, Sattler B, Andersen F, Klausen TL, et al. Image artifacts from MR-based attenuation correction in clinical, whole-body PET/MRI. MAGMA. 2013;26:173–81.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Kong E, Cho I. Clinical issues regarding misclassification by Dixon based PET/MR attenuation correction. Hell J Nucl Med. 2015;18:42–7.PubMed

21.

Cho I, Kong E, Chun K. Image artifacts from MR-based attenuation correction in dedicated PET/MR breast coil for PET/MR mammography. EJNMMI Phys. 2015;2:A62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Grant AM, Deller TW, Khalighi MM, Maramraju SH, Delso G, Levin CS. NEMA NU 2-2012 performance studies for the SiPM-based ToF-PET component of the GE SIGNA PET/MR system. Med Phys. 2016;43:2334.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Biglia N, Bounous VE, Martincich L, Panuccio E, Liberale V, Ottino L, et al. Role of MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) versus conventional imaging for breast cancer presurgical staging in young women or with dense breast. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37:199–204.CrossRefPubMed

24.

DeMartini W, Lehman C, Partridge S. Breast MRI for cancer detection and characterization: a review of evidence-based clinical applications. Acad Radiol. 2008;15:408–16.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Lehman CD, Isaacs C, Schnall MD, Pisano ED, Ascher SM, Weatherall PT, et al. Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology. 2007;244:381–8.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Riedl CC, Ponhold L, Flory D, Weber M, Kroiss R, Wagner T, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast improves detection of invasive cancer, preinvasive cancer, and premalignant lesions during surveillance of women at high risk for breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:6144–52.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Hylton N. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: opportunities to improve breast cancer management. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:1678–84.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Lee CH. Problem solving MR imaging of the breast. Radiol Clin N Am. 2004;42:919–34. vii.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Kinkel K, Hylton NM. Challenges to interpretation of breast MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;13:821–9.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Scheidhauer K, Walter C, Seemann MD. FDG PET and other imaging modalities in the primary diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31 Suppl 1:S70–9.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Hodgson NC, Gulenchyn KY. Is there a role for positron emission tomography in breast cancer staging? J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:712–20.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Groheux D, Espie M, Giacchetti S, Hindie E. Performance of FDG PET/CT in the clinical management of breast cancer. Radiology. 2013;266:388–405.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Kaida H, Ishibashi M, Fujii T, Kurata S, Ogo E, Tanaka M, et al. Improved detection of breast cancer on FDG-PET cancer screening using breast positioning device. Ann Nucl Med. 2008;22:95–101.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Koolen BB, Vrancken Peeters MJ, Wesseling J, Lips EH, Vogel WV, Aukema TS, et al. Association of primary tumour FDG uptake with clinical, histopathological and molecular characteristics in breast cancer patients scheduled for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1830–8.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Moon EH, Lim ST, Han YH, Jeong YJ, Kang YH, Jeong HJ, et al. The usefulness of F-18 FDG PET/CT-mammography for preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison with conventional PET/CT and MR-mammography. Radiol Oncol. 2013;47:390–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Hsu DF, Freese DL, Levin CS. Breast-dedicated radionuclide imaging systems. J Nucl Med. 2016;57 Suppl 1:40S–5S.CrossRefPubMed

37.

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;50:1666–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Kalinyak JE, Berg WA, Schilling K, Madsen KS, Narayanan D, Tartar M. 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

39.

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;258:59–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Moy L, Noz ME, Maguire Jr GQ, Melsaether A, Deans AE, Murphy-Walcott AD, et al. Role of fusion of prone FDG-PET and magnetic resonance imaging of the breasts in the evaluation of breast cancer. Breast J. 2010;16:369–76.PubMed

41.

Taneja S, Jena A, Goel R, Sarin R, Kaul S. Simultaneous whole-body ¹⁸F-FDG PET-MRI in primary staging of breast cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:2231–9.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Botsikas D, Kalovidouri A, Becker M, Copercini M, Djema DA, Bodmer A, et al. Clinical utility of 18F-FDG-PET/MR for preoperative breast cancer staging. Eur Radiol. 2015;26:2297-307.

43.

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. Invest Radiol. 2015;50:505–13.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Crippa F, Gerali A, Alessi A, Agresti R, Bombardieri E. FDG-PET for axillary lymph node staging in primary breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31 Suppl 1:S97–102.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Lovrics PJ, Chen V, Coates G, Cornacchi SD, Goldsmith CH, Law C, et al. A prospective evaluation of positron emission tomography scanning, sentinel lymph node biopsy, and standard axillary dissection for axillary staging in patients with early stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2004;11:846–53.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Riegger C, Koeninger A, Hartung V, Otterbach F, Kimmig R, Forsting M, et al. Comparison of the diagnostic value of FDG-PET/CT and axillary ultrasound for the detection of lymph node metastases in breast cancer patients. Acta Radiol. 2012;53:1092–8.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Aukema TS, Straver ME, Peeters MJ, Russell NS, Gilhuijs KG, Vogel WV, et al. Detection of extra-axillary lymph node involvement with FDG PET/CT in patients with stage II-III breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:3205–10.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Abramson RG, Lambert KF, Jones-Jackson LB, Arlinghaus LR, Williams J, Abramson VG, et al. Prone versus supine breast FDG-PET/CT for assessing locoregional disease distribution in locally advanced breast cancer. Acad Radiol. 2015;22:853–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.

Koolen BB, Valdes Olmos RA, Elkhuizen PH, Vogel WV, Vrancken Peeters MJ, Rodenhuis S, et al. Locoregional lymph node involvement on 18F-FDG PET/CT in breast cancer patients scheduled for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;135:231–40.CrossRefPubMed

50.

He N, Xie C, Wei W, Pan C, Wang W, Lv N, et al. A new, preoperative, MRI-based scoring system for diagnosing malignant axillary lymph nodes in women evaluated for breast cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:2602–12.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Chia S, Swain SM, Byrd DR, Mankoff DA. Locally advanced and inflammatory breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:786–90.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, Geyer CE, Kahlenberg MS, Robidoux A, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:778–85.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Fisher ER, Wang J, Bryant J, Fisher B, Mamounas E, Wolmark N. Pathobiology of preoperative chemotherapy: findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel (NSABP) protocol B-18. Cancer. 2002;95:681–95.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Avril S, Muzic Jr RF, Plecha D, Traughber BJ, Vinayak S, Avril N. 18F-FDG PET/CT for monitoring of treatment response in breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2016;57 Suppl 1:34S–9S.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

55.

Lobbes MB, Prevos R, Smidt M, Tjan-Heijnen VC, van Goethem M, Schipper R, et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in assessing residual disease and pathologic complete response in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review. Insights Imaging. 2013;4:163–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

56.

Park SH, Moon WK, Cho N, Chang JM, Im SA, Park IA, et al. Comparison of diffusion-weighted MR imaging and FDG PET/CT to predict pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:18–25.CrossRefPubMed

57.

An YY, Kim SH, Kang BJ, Lee AW. Treatment response evaluation of breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and usefulness of the imaging parameters of MRI and PET/CT. J Korean Med Sci. 2015;30:808–15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

58.

Charles-Edwards EM, DeSouza NM. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and its application to cancer. Cancer Imaging. 2006;6:135–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

59.

Thoeny HC, De Keyzer F. Extracranial applications of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:1385–93.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Guo Y, Cai YQ, Cai ZL, Gao YG, An NY, Ma L, et al. Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;16:172–8.CrossRefPubMed

61.

Kuroki Y, Nasu K, Kuroki S, Murakami K, Hayashi T, Sekiguchi R, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast cancer with the sensitivity encoding technique: analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient value. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2004;15:79–85.CrossRef

62.

Razek AA, Gaballa G, Denewer A, Nada N. Invasive ductal carcinoma: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient value with pathological prognostic factors. NMR Biomed. 2010;23:619–23.CrossRefPubMed

63.

Martincich L, Deantoni V, Bertotto I, Redana S, Kubatzki F, Sarotto I, et al. Correlations between diffusion-weighted imaging and breast cancer biomarkers. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:1519–28.CrossRefPubMed

64.

Kim SH, Cha ES, Kim HS, Kang BJ, Choi JJ, Jung JH, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast cancer: correlation of the apparent diffusion coefficient value with prognostic factors. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;30:615–20.CrossRefPubMed

65.

Youk JH, Son EJ, Chung J, Kim JA, Kim EK. Triple-negative invasive breast cancer on dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR imaging: comparison with other breast cancer subtypes. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:1724–34.CrossRefPubMed

66.

Choi BB, Kim SH, Kang BJ, Lee JH, Song BJ, Jeong SH, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging and FDG PET/CT: predicting the prognoses with apparent diffusion coefficient values and maximum standardized uptake values in patients with invasive ductal carcinoma. World J Surg Oncol. 2012;10:126.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

67.

Baba S, Isoda T, Maruoka Y, Kitamura Y, Sasaki M, Yoshida T, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of pretreatment SUV in 18F-FDG/PET in breast cancer: comparison with apparent diffusion coefficient from diffusion-weighted MR imaging. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:736–42.CrossRefPubMed

68.

Kong E, Chun KA, Bae YK, Cho IH. Integrated PET/MR mammography for quantitative analysis and correlation to prognostic factors of invasive ductal carcinoma. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016. In press.

69.

Belkic D, Belkic K. Molecular imaging in the framework of personalized cancer medicine. Isr Med Assoc J. 2013;15:665–72.PubMed

70.

Cho N, Im SA, Kang KW, Park IA, Song IC, Lee KH, et al. Early prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: comparison of single-voxel (1)H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:2279-90.

Title: Potential Clinical Applications of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Mammography in Breast Cancer
Authors: Ihn-Ho Cho
Eun-Jung Kong
Publication date: 01-09-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 1869-3474
Electronic ISSN: 1869-3482
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-016-0446-5

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Potential Clinical Applications of ¹⁸F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Mammography in Breast Cancer

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

Difference in F-18 FDG Uptake After Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and Colonoscopy in Healthy Sedated Subjects

Incidentally Detected Small Intestine Intussusception Caused by Primary Small Intestine Carcinoma on 18F-FDG PET/CT

Influence of Androgen Deprivation Therapy on the Uptake of PSMA-Targeted Agents: Emerging Opportunities and Challenges

Clinical Significance of Incidental Focal 18F-FDG Uptake in the Spinal Cord of Patients with Cancer

Message from the Editor-in-Chief

Unusual Soft Tissue Uptake of F-18 Sodium Fluoride in Three Patients Undergoing F-18 NaF PET/CT Bone Scans for Prostate Cancer