OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to assess the effect of breast density, age, and menopausal status on the 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D: -glucose (FDG) uptake in normal breast tissue by quantitative standardized uptake values (SUV). METHODS: A total of 96 patients (premenopausal 54; postmenopausal 42) with histologically proven unilateral breast cancer who underwent FDG-positron emission tomography (PET) scans for staging were included in this study. The median age was 52+/-11 years (range 32-79 years). Fifty-nine patients had grade III or IV mammographic density (dense breast), whereas 37 patients had grade I or II breast density (nondense) according to the ACR Lexicon criteria. In the present study, we analyzed maximum and average SUVs for contralateral normal breast. RESULTS: Maximum and average SUVs for normal dense breasts were 1.02+/-0.30 and 0.84+/-0.27, respectively. Similar values for the nondense breasts were 0.66+/-0.24 and 0.53+/-0.23, respectively. Both maximum and average SUVs of dense breasts were significantly higher than those of nondense breasts (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in SUVs of nipple in patients with dense and nondense breasts. There was no significant effect of age and menopausal status on SUVs of normal breast. However, there were trends of negative relationship, i.e., decreasing SUVs with increasing age. CONCLUSION: There was a significant difference in SUVs between the dense and nondense normal breast. However, the maximum SUVs in the dense breasts were well below the threshold of 2.5, a widely used cutoff value for malignancy. Menopausal status and age do not significantly affect the uptake of FDG.
OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to assess the effect of breast density, age, and menopausal status on the 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D: -glucose (FDG) uptake in normal breast tissue by quantitative standardized uptake values (SUV). METHODS: A total of 96 patients (premenopausal 54; postmenopausal 42) with histologically proven unilateral breast cancer who underwent FDG-positron emission tomography (PET) scans for staging were included in this study. The median age was 52+/-11 years (range 32-79 years). Fifty-nine patients had grade III or IV mammographic density (dense breast), whereas 37 patients had grade I or II breast density (nondense) according to the ACR Lexicon criteria. In the present study, we analyzed maximum and average SUVs for contralateral normal breast. RESULTS: Maximum and average SUVs for normal dense breasts were 1.02+/-0.30 and 0.84+/-0.27, respectively. Similar values for the nondense breasts were 0.66+/-0.24 and 0.53+/-0.23, respectively. Both maximum and average SUVs of dense breasts were significantly higher than those of nondense breasts (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in SUVs of nipple in patients with dense and nondense breasts. There was no significant effect of age and menopausal status on SUVs of normal breast. However, there were trends of negative relationship, i.e., decreasing SUVs with increasing age. CONCLUSION: There was a significant difference in SUVs between the dense and nondense normal breast. However, the maximum SUVs in the dense breasts were well below the threshold of 2.5, a widely used cutoff value for malignancy. Menopausal status and age do not significantly affect the uptake of FDG.
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Taylor Murray; Elizabeth Ward; Alicia Samuels; Ram C Tiwari; Asma Ghafoor; Eric J Feuer; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2005 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: R D Rosenberg; W C Hunt; M R Williamson; F D Gilliland; P W Wiest; C A Kelsey; C R Key; M N Linver Journal: Radiology Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: O E Nieweg; E E Kim; W H Wong; W F Broussard; S E Singletary; G N Hortobagyi; R S Tilbury Journal: Cancer Date: 1993-06-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Duska Vranjesevic; Christiaan Schiepers; Daniel H Silverman; Andrew Quon; James Villalpando; Magnus Dahlbom; Michael E Phelps; Johannes Czernin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Heinrich F Magometschnigg; Pascal A Baltzer; Barbara Fueger; Thomas H Helbich; Georgios Karanikas; Peter Dubsky; Margaretha Rudas; Michael Weber; Katja Pinker Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-06-30 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Brenda F Kurland; Elizabeth R Gerstner; James M Mountz; Lawrence H Schwartz; Christopher W Ryan; Michael M Graham; John M Buatti; Fiona M Fennessy; Edward A Eikman; Virendra Kumar; Kenneth M Forster; Richard L Wahl; Frank S Lieberman Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-08-13 Impact factor: 2.546
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
Authors: G De Lorenzo; M Chmeissani; D Uzun; M Kolstein; I Ozsahin; E Mikhaylova; P Arce; M Cañadas; G Ariño; Y Calderón Journal: J Instrum Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 1.415