UNLABELLED: This prospective study was designed to assess the utility of the dual time point imaging technique by (18)F-FDG PET in detecting primary breast cancer and to determine whether there is a relationship between (18)F-FDG uptake and its change over time and the histopathologic subtypes. METHODS: One hundred fifty-two patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer underwent 2 sequential PET scans (dual time point imaging) for preoperative staging. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of (18)F-FDG was measured from both time points. The percent change in SUVmax (Delta%SUVmax) between time points 1 (SUVmax1) and 2 (SUVmax2) was calculated. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to histopathology as invasive and noninvasive. Invasive tumors were also divided into 2 groups (>10 mm and 4-10 mm). The tumor-to-contralateral normal breast (background) ratios of SUVmax at both time points for groups were measured and the Delta%SUVmax values were calculated. RESULTS: The mean +/- SD of the SUVmax1, the SUVmax2, and the Delta%SUVmax were 3.9 +/- 3.7, 4.3 +/- 4.0, and 8.3% +/- 11.5% for invasive; 2.0 +/- 0.6, 2.1 +/- 0.6, and 3.4% +/- 13.0% for noninvasive; and were 1.2 +/- 0.3, 1.1 +/- 0.2, and -10.0% +/- 10.8% for the contralateral normal breast groups, respectively. In the comparison of SUVmax1, Delta%SUVmax, and the tumor-to-background ratios among groups, all results were significant (P < 0.001). Visual assessment revealed that the sensitivity of dual time point imaging was 90.1% for invasive cancer >10 mm, 82.7% for invasive breast cancers 4-10 mm, and 76.9% for noninvasive breast cancers. CONCLUSION: Dual time point imaging is a simple and noninvasive method that may improve the sensitivity and accuracy of (18)F-FDG PET in assessing patients with primary breast cancer. The changes that are noted in SUVs in dual time point imaging vary depending on the histopathologic type of primary breast cancer.
UNLABELLED: This prospective study was designed to assess the utility of the dual time point imaging technique by (18)F-FDG PET in detecting primary breast cancer and to determine whether there is a relationship between (18)F-FDG uptake and its change over time and the histopathologic subtypes. METHODS: One hundred fifty-two patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer underwent 2 sequential PET scans (dual time point imaging) for preoperative staging. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of (18)F-FDG was measured from both time points. The percent change in SUVmax (Delta%SUVmax) between time points 1 (SUVmax1) and 2 (SUVmax2) was calculated. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to histopathology as invasive and noninvasive. Invasive tumors were also divided into 2 groups (>10 mm and 4-10 mm). The tumor-to-contralateral normal breast (background) ratios of SUVmax at both time points for groups were measured and the Delta%SUVmax values were calculated. RESULTS: The mean +/- SD of the SUVmax1, the SUVmax2, and the Delta%SUVmax were 3.9 +/- 3.7, 4.3 +/- 4.0, and 8.3% +/- 11.5% for invasive; 2.0 +/- 0.6, 2.1 +/- 0.6, and 3.4% +/- 13.0% for noninvasive; and were 1.2 +/- 0.3, 1.1 +/- 0.2, and -10.0% +/- 10.8% for the contralateral normal breast groups, respectively. In the comparison of SUVmax1, Delta%SUVmax, and the tumor-to-background ratios among groups, all results were significant (P < 0.001). Visual assessment revealed that the sensitivity of dual time point imaging was 90.1% for invasive cancer >10 mm, 82.7% for invasive breast cancers 4-10 mm, and 76.9% for noninvasive breast cancers. CONCLUSION: Dual time point imaging is a simple and noninvasive method that may improve the sensitivity and accuracy of (18)F-FDG PET in assessing patients with primary breast cancer. The changes that are noted in SUVs in dual time point imaging vary depending on the histopathologic type of primary breast cancer.
Authors: Jin Kyoung Oh; Ik Dong Yoo; Ye Young Seo; Yong An Chung; Ie Ryung Yoo; Sung Hoon Kim; In Uk Song Journal: Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-10-14
Authors: Ana María García Vicente; Angel Soriano Castrejón; Miguel Angel Cruz Mora; Ana González Ageitos; María del Mar Muñoz Sánchez; Alberto León Martín; Ruth Espinosa Aunión; Fernanda Relea Calatayud; Vicente Muñoz Madero; Ignacio Chacón López-Muñiz; Jose Manuel Cordero García; Germán Andrés Jiménez Londoño Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-09-28 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Gang Cheng; Abass Alavi; Esther Lim; Thomas J Werner; Catherine V Del Bello; Scott R Akers Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: M G Caprio; A Cangiano; M Imbriaco; F Soscia; G Di Martino; A Farina; G Avitabile; L Pace; P Forestieri; M Salvatore Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-12-16 Impact factor: 3.469