Literature DB >> 21076089

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

Wendie A Berg1, Kathleen S Madsen, Kathy Schilling, Marie Tartar, Etta D Pisano, Linda Hovanessian Larsen, Deepa Narayanan, Al Ozonoff, Joel P Miller, Judith E Kalinyak.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the performance of positron emission mammography (PEM), as compared with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, including the effect on surgical management, in ipsilateral breasts with cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four hundred seventy-two women with newly diagnosed breast cancer who were offered breast-conserving surgery consented from September 2006 to November 2008 to participate in a multicenter institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant protocol. Participants underwent contrast material-enhanced MR imaging and fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose PEM in randomized order; resultant images were interpreted independently. Added biopsies and changes in surgical procedure for the ipsilateral breast were correlated with histopathologic findings. Performance characteristics were compared by using the McNemar test and generalized estimating equations.
RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-eight women (median age, 58 years; age range, 26-93 years; median estimated tumor size, 1.5 cm) completed the study. Additional cancers were found in 82 (21%) women (82 ipsilateral breasts; median tumor size, 0.7 cm). Twenty-eight (34%) of the 82 breasts were identified with both PEM and MR imaging; 21 (26%) breasts, with MR imaging only; 14 (17%) breasts, with PEM only; and seven (8.5%) breasts, with mammography and ultrasonography. Twelve (15%) cases of additional cancer were missed at all imaging examinations. Integration of PEM and MR imaging increased cancer detection-to 61 (74%) of 82 breasts versus 49 (60%) of 82 breasts identified with MR imaging alone (P < .001). Of 306 breasts without additional cancer, 279 (91.2%) were correctly assessed with PEM compared with 264 (86.3%) that were correctly assessed with MR imaging (P = .03). The positive predictive value of biopsy prompted by PEM findings (47 [66%] of 71 cases) was higher than that of biopsy prompted by MR findings (61 [53%] of 116 cases) (P = .016). Of 116 additional cancers, 61 (53%) were depicted by MR imaging and 47 (41%) were depicted by PEM (P = .043). Fifty-six (14%) of the 388 women required mastectomy: 40 (71%) of these women were identified with MR imaging, and 20 (36%) were identified with PEM (P < .001). Eleven (2.8%) women underwent unnecessary mastectomy, which was prompted by only MR findings in five women, by only PEM findings in one, and by PEM and MR findings in five. Thirty-three (8.5%) women required wider excision: 24 (73%) of these women were identified with MR imaging, and 22 (67%) were identified with PEM.
CONCLUSION: PEM and MR imaging had comparable breast-level sensitivity, although MR imaging had greater lesion-level sensitivity and more accurately depicted the need for mastectomy. PEM had greater specificity at the breast and lesion levels. Eighty-nine (23%) participants required more extensive surgery: 61 (69%) of these women were identified with MR imaging, and 41 (46%) were identified with PEM (P = .003). Fourteen (3.6%) women had tumors seen only at PEM. © RSNA, 2010

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21076089      PMCID: PMC3009380          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10100454

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  23 in total

1.  Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study.

Authors:  Mitchell D Schnall; Jeffrey Blume; David A Bluemke; Gia A DeAngelis; Nanette DeBruhl; Steven Harms; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Nola Hylton; Christiane K Kuhl; Etta D Pisano; Petrina Causer; Stuart J Schnitt; David Thickman; Carol B Stelling; Paul T Weatherall; Constance Lehman; Constantine A Gatsonis
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study.

Authors:  Christiane K Kuhl; Simone Schrading; Heribert B Bieling; Eva Wardelmann; Claudia C Leutner; Roy Koenig; Walther Kuhn; Hans H Schild
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2007-08-11       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 3.  Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials.

Authors:  M Clarke; R Collins; S Darby; C Davies; P Elphinstone; V Evans; J Godwin; R Gray; C Hicks; S James; E MacKinnon; P McGale; T McHugh; R Peto; C Taylor; Y Wang
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2005-12-17       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Impact of breast MRI on surgical treatment, axillary approach, and systemic therapy for breast cancer.

Authors:  Claudia S Mameri; Claudio Kemp; Suzan M Goldman; Luiz A Sobral; Sergio Ajzen
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2008 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.431

Review 5.  Review of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast cancer: should MRI be performed on all women with newly diagnosed, early stage breast cancer?

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Daniel F Hayes
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2009-08-13       Impact factor: 508.702

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

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Irving N Weinberg; Deepa Narayanan; Mary E Lobrano; Eric Ross; Laura Amodei; Lorraine Tafra; Lee P Adler; Joseph Uddo; William Stein; Edward A Levine
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2006 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.431

7.  Relationship of breast magnetic resonance imaging to outcome after breast-conservation treatment with radiation for women with early-stage invasive breast carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  Lawrence J Solin; Susan G Orel; Wei-Ting Hwang; Eleanor E Harris; Mitchell D Schnall
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-01-20       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Trends in mastectomy rates at the Mayo Clinic Rochester: effect of surgical year and preoperative magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Rajini Katipamula; Amy C Degnim; Tanya Hoskin; Judy C Boughey; Charles Loprinzi; Clive S Grant; Kathleen R Brandt; Sandhya Pruthi; Christopher G Chute; Janet E Olson; Fergus J Couch; James N Ingle; Matthew P Goetz
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-07-27       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Association of routine pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging with time to surgery, mastectomy rate, and margin status.

Authors:  Richard J Bleicher; Robin M Ciocca; Brian L Egleston; Linda Sesa; Kathryn Evers; Elin R Sigurdson; Monica Morrow
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2009-06-18       Impact factor: 6.113

Review 10.  Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Stefano Ciatto; Petra Macaskill; Sarah J Lord; Ruth M Warren; J Michael Dixon; Les Irwig
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-05-12       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  42 in total

Review 1.  Present and future role of FDG-PET/CT imaging in the management of breast cancer.

Authors:  Kazuhiro Kitajima; Yasuo Miyoshi
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2016-01-05       Impact factor: 2.374

2.  Clinical utility of positron emission mammography.

Authors:  Shannon B Glass; Zeeshan A Shah
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2013-07

Review 3.  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

4.  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

Review 5.  Preoperative imaging for breast conservation surgery-do we need more than conventional imaging for local disease assessment?

Authors:  Eugene Ong
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2018-12

6.  Multiparametric and Multimodality Functional Radiological Imaging for Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Early Treatment Response Assessment.

Authors:  Michael A Jacobs; Antonio C Wolff; Katarzyna J Macura; Vered Stearns; Ronald Ouwerkerk; Riham El Khouli; David A Bluemke; Richard Wahl
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2015-05

Review 7.  Nuclear imaging of the breast: translating achievements in instrumentation into clinical use.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska; Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Impact of Using Uniform Attenuation Coefficients for Heterogeneously Dense Breasts in a Dedicated Breast PET/X-ray Scanner.

Authors:  Lawrence R MacDonald; Joseph Y Lo; Gregory M Sturgeon; Chengeng Zeng; Robert L Harrison; Paul E Kinahan; William Paul Segars
Journal:  IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci       Date:  2020-04-29

9.  18F-fluorodeoxyglucose specimen-positron emission mammography delineates tumour extension in breast-conserving surgery: Preliminary results.

Authors:  Gou Watanabe; M Itoh; X Duan; H Watabe; N Mori; H Tada; A Suzuki; M Miyashita; N Ohuchi; T Ishida
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 10.  Positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging: technical review.

Authors:  Raymond F Muzic; Frank P DiFilippo
Journal:  Semin Roentgenol       Date:  2014-10-18       Impact factor: 0.800

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.