Literature DB >> 15133634

FDG PET and other imaging modalities in the primary diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions.

K Scheidhauer1, C Walter, M D Seemann.   

Abstract

Mammography is the primary imaging modality for screening of breast cancer and evaluation of breast lesions (T staging). Ultrasonography is an adjunctive tool for mammographically suspicious lesions, in patients with mastopathy and as guidance for reliable histological diagnosis with percutaneous biopsy. Dynamic enhanced magnetic resonance mammography (MRM) has a high sensitivity for the detection of breast cancer, but also a high false positive diagnosis rate. In the literature, MRM is reported to have a sensitivity of 86-96%, a specificity of 64-91%, an accuracy of 79-93%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 77-92% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 75-94%. In unclarified cases, metabolic imaging using fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) can be performed. In the literature, FDG PET is reported to have a sensitivity of 64-96%, a specificity of 73-100%, an accuracy of 70-97%, a PPV of 81-100% and an NPV of 52-89%. Furthermore, PET or PET/CT using FDG has an important role in the assessment of N and M staging of breast cancer, the prediction of tumour response in patients with locally advanced breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and the differentiation of scar and cancer recurrence. Other functional radionuclide-based diagnostic tools, such as scintimammography with sestamibi, peptide scintigraphy or immunoscintigraphy, have a lower accuracy than FDG PET and, therefore, are appropriate only for exceptional indications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15133634     DOI: 10.1007/s00259-004-1528-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging        ISSN: 1619-7070            Impact factor:   9.236


  74 in total

Review 1.  Imaging and management of nonpalpable lesions of the breast.

Authors:  A A Tardivon; J M Guinebretière; C Dromain; D Vanel
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.528

2.  Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions?

Authors:  C K Kuhl; P Mielcareck; S Klaschik; C Leutner; E Wardelmann; J Gieseke; H H Schild
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Differentiating benign from malignant enhancing lesions identified at MR imaging of the breast: are time-signal intensity curves an accurate predictor?

Authors:  S G Orel
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  [Whole body positron emission tomography in breast cancer].

Authors:  E U Nitzsche; C K Hoh; N M Dalbohm; J A Glaspy; M E Phelps; E A Moser; R A Hawkins
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  1993-04

5.  Glucose metabolism of breast cancer assessed by 18F-FDG PET: histologic and immunohistochemical tissue analysis.

Authors:  N Avril; M Menzel; J Dose; M Schelling; W Weber; F Jänicke; W Nathrath; M Schwaiger
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 10.057

6.  Role of breast magnetic resonance imaging in determining breast as a source of unknown metastatic lymphadenopathy.

Authors:  R S Henry-Tillman; S E Harms; K C Westbrook; S Korourian; V S Klimberg
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 2.565

7.  The usefulness of 99mTc-tetrofosmin SPECT scintimammography in the detection of small size primary breast carcinomas.

Authors:  Angela Spanu; Orazio Schillaci; Giovanni Battista Meloni; Alberto Porcu; Pierina Cottu; Susanna Nuvoli; Antonio Falchi; Francesca Chessa; Maria Elisabetta Solinas; Giuseppe Madeddu
Journal:  Int J Oncol       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 5.650

8.  Is the "blooming sign" a promising additional tool to determine malignancy in MR mammography?

Authors:  D R Fischer; P Baltzer; A Malich; S Wurdinger; M G Freesmeyer; C Marx; W A Kaiser
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-09-27       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Clinical and diagnostic value of preoperative MR mammography and FDG-PET in suspicious breast lesions.

Authors:  C Walter; K Scheidhauer; A Scharl; U-J Goering; P Theissen; H Kugel; T Krahe; U Pietrzyk
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-01-23       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Technetium-99m-sestamibi prone scintimammography to detect primary breast cancer and axillary lymph node involvement.

Authors:  R Taillefer; A Robidoux; R Lambert; S Turpin; J Laperrière
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 10.057

View more
  16 in total

1.  Evaluation of novel genetic algorithm generated schemes for positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) image fusion.

Authors:  K G Baum; E Schmidt; K Rafferty; A Krol; María Helguera
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity predicts invasive components in breast ductal carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  Hai-Jeon Yoon; Yemi Kim; Bom Sahn Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-06-11       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  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
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-12-21       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  Potential Clinical Applications of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Mammography in Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Ihn-Ho Cho; Eun-Jung Kong
Journal:  Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-08-30

5.  The Structural Basis of Action of Vanadyl (VO2+) Chelates in Cells.

Authors:  Marvin W Makinen; Marzieh Salehitazangi
Journal:  Coord Chem Rev       Date:  2014-11-01       Impact factor: 22.315

Review 6.  Clinical PET-MR Imaging in Breast Cancer and Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Samuel L Rice; Kent P Friedman
Journal:  PET Clin       Date:  2016-10

7.  Quantification of FDG PET studies using standardised uptake values in multi-centre trials: effects of image reconstruction, resolution and ROI definition parameters.

Authors:  Marinke Westerterp; Jan Pruim; Wim Oyen; Otto Hoekstra; Anne Paans; Eric Visser; Jan van Lanschot; Gerrit Sloof; Ronald Boellaard
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2006-10-11       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 8.  Breast image registration techniques: a survey.

Authors:  Yujun Guo; Radhika Sivaramakrishna; Cheng-Chang Lu; Jasjit S Suri; Swamy Laxminarayan
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.602

9.  Impact of FDG PET on the preoperative staging of newly diagnosed breast cancer.

Authors:  Tevfik F Cermik; Ayse Mavi; Sandip Basu; Abass Alavi
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2007-10-24       Impact factor: 9.236

10.  Unexpected foci of 18F-FDG uptake in the breast detected by PET/CT: incidence and clinical significance.

Authors:  Diana Litmanovich; Konstantin Gourevich; Ora Israel; Zahava Gallimidi
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2009-05-01       Impact factor: 9.236

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.