UNLABELLED: MRI is a sensitive method for detecting invasive breast cancer, but it lacks specificity. To examine the effect of combining PET with MRI on breast lesion characterization, a prototype positioning device was fabricated to allow PET scans to be acquired in the same position as MRI scans--that is, prone. METHODS: To test the hypothesis that fusion of (18)F-FDG PET and MRI scans improves detection of breast cancer, 23 patients with suspected recurrent or new breast cancer underwent a routine whole-body PET scan, a prone PET scan of the chest, and a routine breast MRI scan. The attenuation-corrected prone PET and MRI datasets were registered twice by different operators. The fusion results were judged for quality by visual inspection and statistical analysis. A joint reading of the MRI and PET scans side by side and integrated images was performed by a nuclear medicine physician and a radiologist. Sensitivity and specificity of MRI and combined MRI and PET scans were calculated on the basis of pathology reports or at least 1 y of clinical and radiologic follow-up. RESULTS: All fusions were verified to be well matched using specific anatomic criteria. A total of 45 lesions was assessed. Lesion size range was 0.6 to 10.0 cm. Of the 44 breasts examined, 29 were suspicious for cancer, of which 15 were found to be positive on surgical excision. In lesion-by-lesion analysis, sensitivity and specificity of MRI alone were 92% and 52%, respectively; after MRI and PET fusion, they were 63% and 95%, respectively. The positive predictive value and the negative predictive value for MRI alone were 69% and 85%, respectively; after MRI and PET fusion, they were 94% and 69%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Acquisition of prone PET scans using the new positioning device permitted acquisition of prone scans suitable for fusion with breast MRI scans. Fused PET and MRI scans increased the specificity of MRI but decreased the sensitivity in this small group of patients. Additional data are needed to confirm the statistical significance of these preliminary findings.
UNLABELLED: MRI is a sensitive method for detecting invasive breast cancer, but it lacks specificity. To examine the effect of combining PET with MRI on breast lesion characterization, a prototype positioning device was fabricated to allow PET scans to be acquired in the same position as MRI scans--that is, prone. METHODS: To test the hypothesis that fusion of (18)F-FDG PET and MRI scans improves detection of breast cancer, 23 patients with suspected recurrent or new breast cancer underwent a routine whole-body PET scan, a prone PET scan of the chest, and a routine breast MRI scan. The attenuation-corrected prone PET and MRI datasets were registered twice by different operators. The fusion results were judged for quality by visual inspection and statistical analysis. A joint reading of the MRI and PET scans side by side and integrated images was performed by a nuclear medicine physician and a radiologist. Sensitivity and specificity of MRI and combined MRI and PET scans were calculated on the basis of pathology reports or at least 1 y of clinical and radiologic follow-up. RESULTS: All fusions were verified to be well matched using specific anatomic criteria. A total of 45 lesions was assessed. Lesion size range was 0.6 to 10.0 cm. Of the 44 breasts examined, 29 were suspicious for cancer, of which 15 were found to be positive on surgical excision. In lesion-by-lesion analysis, sensitivity and specificity of MRI alone were 92% and 52%, respectively; after MRI and PET fusion, they were 63% and 95%, respectively. The positive predictive value and the negative predictive value for MRI alone were 69% and 85%, respectively; after MRI and PET fusion, they were 94% and 69%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Acquisition of prone PET scans using the new positioning device permitted acquisition of prone scans suitable for fusion with breast MRI scans. Fused PET and MRI scans increased the specificity of MRI but decreased the sensitivity in this small group of patients. Additional data are needed to confirm the statistical significance of these preliminary findings.
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
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Risa K Vanantwerp; Robert K Doot; Xiaoyu Chai; Brenda F Kurland; Peter R Eby; Jennifer M Specht; Lisa K Dunnwald; Erin K Schubert; Constance D Lehman; David A Mankoff Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 4.813
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
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
Authors: Julian Kirchner; Johannes Grueneisen; Ole Martin; Mark Oehmigen; Harald H Quick; Ann-Kathrin Bittner; Oliver Hoffmann; Marc Ingenwerth; Onofrio Antonio Catalano; Philipp Heusch; Christian Buchbender; Michael Forsting; Gerald Antoch; Ken Herrmann; Lale Umutlu Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-07-28 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jason M Williams; Sudheer D Rani; Xia Li; Lori R Arlinghaus; Tzu-Cheng Lee; Lawrence R MacDonald; Savannah C Partridge; Hakmook Kang; Jennifer G Whisenant; Richard G Abramson; Hannah M Linden; Paul E Kinahan; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 4.071