Literature DB >> 21427350

Interpretation of positron emission mammography: feature analysis and rates of malignancy.

Deepa Narayanan1, Kathleen S Madsen, Judith E Kalinyak, Wendie A Berg.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to define and illustrate standard terminology for describing findings on positron emission mammography (PEM) and provide associated rates of malignancy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Three hundred eighty-eight women with newly-diagnosed breast cancer anticipating breast-conserving surgery completed a multicenter trial comparing PEM to MRI in assessment of disease extent. Morphologic terminology to describe PEM findings was patterned on BI-RADS for MRI, and investigators were trained in the PEM lexicon. PEM imaging features of known malignancies and additional PEM lesions were recorded and correlated with outcome. The reference standard was biopsy or at least a 6-month follow-up.
RESULTS: Of 166 additional lesions on PEM, 54 (33%) proved malignant, with median invasive tumor size 8 mm (range, 2-60 mm). Among 43 round or oval masses, 16 (37%) were malignant, compared with 16 of 21 (76%) of lobulated or irregular masses (p = 0.003). Among 14 findings of focal or regional nonmass uptake, two (14%) were malignant compared with four of 12 (33%) findings of linear-ductal or segmental uptake (p = 0.350). Malignancy rates for BI-RADS-type final assessments were category 2, one of 31 (3.2%); 3, three of 32 (9.4%); 4a, four of 18 (22%); 4b, nine of 33 (27%); 4c, 15 of 24 (63%); and 5, 22 of 28 (79%). On the basis of modeling, irregular or lobulated morphology was the strongest predictor of malignancy, followed by lesion laterality (i.e., ipsilateral to known cancer) then increasing semiquantitative (18)F-FDG uptake.
CONCLUSION: Use of standardized terminology to report PEM findings will facilitate effective communication of results and consistent management. A probably benign category 3 assessment carried a substantial rate of malignancy for lesions seen on PEM, and biopsy may be more appropriate than follow-up.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21427350     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.4748

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  13 in total

1.  The importance of standardized interpretation of molecular breast imaging with dedicated gamma cameras.

Authors:  Orazio Schillaci
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 9.236

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.  Usefulness of feature analysis of breast-specific gamma imaging for predicting malignancy.

Authors:  Eun Kyoung Choi; Jooyeon Jamie Im; Chang Suk Park; Yong-An Chung; Kijun Kim; Jin Kyoung Oh
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-06-12       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Can positron emission mammography help to identify clinically significant breast cancer in women with suspicious calcifications on mammography?

Authors:  Almir G V Bitencourt; Eduardo N P Lima; Bruna R C Macedo; Jorge L F A Conrado; Elvira F Marques; Rubens Chojniak
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-09-02       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Interpretation of positron emission mammography and MRI by experienced breast imaging radiologists: performance and observer reproducibility.

Authors:  Deepa Narayanan; Kathleen S Madsen; Judith E Kalinyak; Wendie A Berg
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Effect of menstrual cycle phase on background parenchymal uptake at molecular breast imaging.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska; Amy Lynn Conners; Celine M Vachon; Michael K O'Connor; Lynne T Shuster; Adam C Bartley; Deborah J Rhodes
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-06-22       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  Breast cancer detection using high-resolution breast PET compared to whole-body PET or PET/CT.

Authors:  Judith E Kalinyak; Wendie A Berg; Kathy Schilling; Kathleen S Madsen; Deepa Narayanan; Marie Tartar
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-10-02       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 9.  Dedicated Breast Gamma Camera Imaging and Breast PET: Current Status and Future Directions.

Authors:  Deepa Narayanan; Wendie A Berg
Journal:  PET Clin       Date:  2018-07

10.  Positron emission mammography (PEM): reviewing standardized semiquantitative method.

Authors:  Yayoi Yamamoto; Youichiro Tasaki; Yukiko Kuwada; Yukihiko Ozawa; Atsushi Katayama; Yoshihide Kanemaki; Katsutoshi Enokido; Seigo Nakamura; Kouichi Kubouchi; Satoshi Morita; Mutsumi Noritake; Yasuo Nakajima; Tomio Inoue
Journal:  Ann Nucl Med       Date:  2013-07-02       Impact factor: 2.668

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.