OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to compare dual-time-point (18)F-FDG PET/CT, performed with the patient in the prone position, and contrast-enhanced MRI in patients with suspected breast malignancy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty-four patients with 55 breast lesions underwent two PET/CT scans (dual-time-point imaging) in the prone position and breast MRI. Sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy were calculated. In addition, the average percentage of change in standard uptake values (Delta%SUV(max)) between time point 1 and time point 2 was calculated for PET/CT. A final histopathologic diagnosis was available for all patients. RESULTS: MRI showed an overall accuracy of 95%, with sensitivity and specificity of 98% and 80%. Conversely, dual-time-point PET/CT showed an accuracy of 84% for lesions with an SUV(max) > or = 2.5 or with a positive Delta%SUV(max), with sensitivity and specificity of 80% and 100% versus 69% accuracy, 62% sensitivity (both, p < 0.001), and 100% specificity (p not significant) for single-time-point PET/CT. On PET/CT, malignant lesions showed an increase in FDG between time points 1 and 2, with a Delta%SUV(max) of 11 +/- 24. Benign lesions showed either no change or a decrease in SUV(max) between time points 1 and 2, with a Delta%SUV(max) of -21 +/- 7. CONCLUSION: A dual time point improves PET/CT accuracy in patients with a suspected breast malignancy over single-time-point PET/CT. On PET/CT, FDG is increasingly taken up over time in breast tumors; conversely, benign lesions show a decrease in FDG uptake over time. These changes in SUV might represent a reliable parameter that can be used to differentiate benign from malignant lesions of the breast on PET/CT examination.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to compare dual-time-point (18)F-FDG PET/CT, performed with the patient in the prone position, and contrast-enhanced MRI in patients with suspected breast malignancy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty-four patients with 55 breast lesions underwent two PET/CT scans (dual-time-point imaging) in the prone position and breast MRI. Sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy were calculated. In addition, the average percentage of change in standard uptake values (Delta%SUV(max)) between time point 1 and time point 2 was calculated for PET/CT. A final histopathologic diagnosis was available for all patients. RESULTS: MRI showed an overall accuracy of 95%, with sensitivity and specificity of 98% and 80%. Conversely, dual-time-point PET/CT showed an accuracy of 84% for lesions with an SUV(max) > or = 2.5 or with a positive Delta%SUV(max), with sensitivity and specificity of 80% and 100% versus 69% accuracy, 62% sensitivity (both, p < 0.001), and 100% specificity (p not significant) for single-time-point PET/CT. On PET/CT, malignant lesions showed an increase in FDG between time points 1 and 2, with a Delta%SUV(max) of 11 +/- 24. Benign lesions showed either no change or a decrease in SUV(max) between time points 1 and 2, with a Delta%SUV(max) of -21 +/- 7. CONCLUSION: A dual time point improves PET/CT accuracy in patients with a suspected breast malignancy over single-time-point PET/CT. On PET/CT, FDG is increasingly taken up over time in breast tumors; conversely, benign lesions show a decrease in FDG uptake over time. These changes in SUV might represent a reliable parameter that can be used to differentiate benign from malignant lesions of the breast on PET/CT examination.
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: Amy M Fowler; Manoj Kumar; Leah Henze Bancroft; Kelley Salem; Jacob M Johnson; Jillian Karow; Scott B Perlman; Tyler J Bradshaw; Samuel A Hurley; Alan B McMillan; Roberta M Strigel Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2021-01-15
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: Richard G Abramson; Katrina F Lambert; Laurie B Jones-Jackson; Lori R Arlinghaus; Jason Williams; Vandana G Abramson; A Bapsi Chakravarthy; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-04-10 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Stephen P Povoski; Douglas A Murrey; Sabrina M Smith; Edward W Martin; Nathan C Hall Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-06-19 Impact factor: 4.430