Literature DB >> 16848840

High-resolution fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with compression ("positron emission mammography") is highly accurate in depicting primary breast cancer.

Wendie A Berg1, Irving N Weinberg, Deepa Narayanan, Mary E Lobrano, Eric Ross, Laura Amodei, Lorraine Tafra, Lee P Adler, Joseph Uddo, William Stein, Edward A Levine.   

Abstract

We sought to prospectively assess the diagnostic performance of a high-resolution positron emission tomography (PET) scanner using mild breast compression (positron emission mammography [PEM]). Data were collected on concomitant medical conditions to assess potential confounding factors. At four centers, 94 consecutive women with known breast cancer or suspicious breast lesions received 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) intravenously, followed by PEM scans. Readers were provided clinical histories and x-ray mammograms (when available). After excluding inevaluable cases and two cases of lymphoma, PEM readings were correlated with histopathology for 92 lesions in 77 women: 77 index lesions (42 malignant), 3 ipsilateral lesions (3 malignant), and 12 contralateral lesions (3 malignant). Of 48 cancers, 16 (33%) were clinically evident; 11 (23%) were ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and 37 (77%) were invasive (30 ductal, 4 lobular, and 3 mixed; median size 21 mm). PEM depicted 10 of 11 (91%) DCIS and 33 of 37 (89%) invasive cancers. PEM was positive in 1 of 2 T1a tumors, 4 of 6 T1b tumors, 7 of 7 T1c tumors, and 4 of 4 cases where tumor size was not available (e.g., no surgical follow-up). PEM sensitivity for detecting cancer was 90%, specificity 86%, positive predictive value (PPV) 88%, negative predictive value (NPV) 88%, accuracy 88%, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (Az) 0.918. In three patients, cancer foci were identified only on PEM, significantly changing patient management. Excluding eight diabetic subjects and eight subjects whose lesions were characterized as clearly benign with conventional imaging, PEM sensitivity was 91%, specificity 93%, PPV 95%, NPV 88%, accuracy 92%, and Az 0.949 when interpreted with mammographic and clinical findings. FDG PEM has high diagnostic accuracy for breast lesions, including DCIS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16848840     DOI: 10.1111/j.1075-122X.2006.00269.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast J        ISSN: 1075-122X            Impact factor:   2.431


  45 in total

1.  Investigating the limit of detectability of a positron emission mammography device: a phantom study.

Authors:  Nicholas A Shkumat; Adam Springer; Christopher M Walker; Eric M Rohren; Wei T Yang; Beatriz E Adrada; Elsa Arribas; Selin Carkaci; Hubert H Chuang; Lumarie Santiago; Osama R Mawlawi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  [Functional and molecular imaging of breast tumors].

Authors:  K Pinker; P Brader; G Karanikas; K El-Rabadi; W Bogner; S Gruber; M Reisegger; S Trattnig; T H Helbich
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 3.  Mode of detection and secular time for ductal carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2010

4.  Breast cancer: comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MR imaging in presurgical planning for the ipsilateral breast.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Kathleen S Madsen; Kathy Schilling; Marie Tartar; Etta D Pisano; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Deepa Narayanan; Al Ozonoff; Joel P Miller; Judith E Kalinyak
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-11-12       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Quantification with a dedicated breast PET/CT scanner.

Authors:  Spencer L Bowen; Andrea Ferrero; Ramsey D Badawi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 6.  Use of Breast-Specific PET Scanners and Comparison with MR Imaging.

Authors:  Deepa Narayanan; Wendie A Berg
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 2.266

7.  VPAC1 receptors for imaging breast cancer: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Mathew L Thakur; Kaijun Zhang; Adam Berger; Barbara Cavanaugh; Sung Kim; Chaitra Channappa; Andrea J Frangos; Eric Wickstrom; Charles M Intenzo
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2013-05-07       Impact factor: 10.057

8.  Diagnostic workup and costs of a single supplemental molecular breast imaging screen of mammographically dense breasts.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska; Amy Lynn Conners; Katie N Jones; Michael K O'Connor; James P Moriarty; Judy C Boughey; Deborah J Rhodes
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Molecular Imaging in Breast Cancer - Potential Future Aspects.

Authors:  Katja Pinker; Wolfgang Bogner; Stephan Gruber; Peter Brader; Siegfried Trattnig; Georgios Karanikas; Thomas H Helbich
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2011-04-29       Impact factor: 2.860

Review 10.  Breast cancer imaging: a perspective for the next decade.

Authors:  Andrew Karellas; Srinivasan Vedantham
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.